From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 5 January 7 >

January 6

Category:Swedish Douglases

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:House of Douglas and Angus. Ruslik_ Zero 20:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Swedish Douglases to Category:Douglas family (Sweden)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change to standard format for families. There's currently no Category:Douglas family but I assume not specifying this one is the Swedish Douglases could cause problems. The parent is Category:House of Douglas and Angus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (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:Noel songs

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 Category:Noel songs to Category:Noel Pagan songs and Category:Noel albums to Category:Noel Pagan albums. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Noel (singer). As currently named it's liable to be confused as a category for Christmas-related songs—perhaps French Christmas songs or something ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2010 (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:Constituencies of County Kilkenny

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Constituencies of County Kilkenny to Category:Politics of County Kilkenny and Category:Dáil Éireann constituencies in the Republic of Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OC#SMALL. Single-article category, no possibility of expansion unless it includes the former constituencies in County Kilkenny. I encountered it while I was creating by-county sub-categories of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic), because most counties have 5-10 historic constituencies, so it made sense to separate them out. However, the only other county in Ireland to have a by-county-category for current constituencies is Dublin (see Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Dublin), where there are 12 constituencies. County Cork has 5 constituencies, but there are only 44 constituencies in total, so the other 24 counties have only 39 counties between them. Sub-dividing that lot by county will just create lots more single-article categories like this one. All the other counties simply have the constituencies in the "Politics of County X" category", and that's all Kilkenny needs. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support merging - per nominator. Also, there is alot of redundant/practically empty X of/in Kilkenny categories. They were mostly created (in GF) by MrChris but most need to be upmerged in County Kilkenny or Ireland, or deleted. Snappy ( talk) 15:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Seems a good idea but I do not really know about the subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:51, 10 January 2010 (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:HC Milano Saima 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: relisted at 2010 JAN 19 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:HC Milano Saima players to Category:HC Milano players
Nominator's rationale: according to http://www.eurohockey.net/, these two apparently different clubs are the same Mayumashu ( talk) 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the presumptive parent article at HC Milano states that the team folded in the mid-1950s, which seems to be at odds with the bios of the players in the category. Is this team name correct? Alansohn ( talk) 01:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Interesting. I didn t expect there to be an article (my presumptiveness). According to eurohockey.net, the WP article contents would seem to be correct, but incomplete. There seems to have been two incarnations of a club by this (exact) name, one from the 1920s to the 1956 (although it was named 'Inter Milan' during the 1950s, as the WP article page says) and another from the mid 1980s till 2008. The Milano club now is called Hockey Milano Rossoblu [1]. Eurohockey.net does not list any HC Milano Saima per se and the players listed on the HC Milano Saima players WP category page played for HC Milano according to Eurohockey.net Mayumashu ( talk) 03:41, 7 January 2010 (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:Glamour models navbox templates

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Glamour models navbox templates to Category:Models navbox templates
Nominator's rationale: Model_(person)#Glamour_models defines glamour modeling as emphasizing sexuality over products, a la modeling in Playboy, Maxim, FHM, etc. Since the cat contains navboxes regarding Victoria's Secret (which, although famous for it's models, is about selling products), more of a blanket term seems appropriate, although whether the first word should be plural or not is debatable.  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:38, 6 January 2010 (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.

IPFW athletics, round 2

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming the following:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In US college athletics, "University", "College" and the like are essentially NEVER used to describe schools. The only times you'll ever see those are in cases like Boston College and Boston University where it's needed to distinguish between two schools with similar names. I still believe the proposal to change to "IPFW" was far better, but I think this is an acceptable compromise. Dale Arnett ( talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (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.

Irish politicians by party

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 Category:Democratic Left politicians (Ireland) to Category:Democratic Left (Ireland) politicians; no consensus on the second one. It sounds like a broader nomination for independent politicians would be helpful b/c the current format is inconsistent. (Categories weren't tagged, by the way, but I'm not going to worry about this too much b/c the change being made is slight and will bring the category into conformity with most other politicians categories.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming another 2 sub-categories of Category:Irish politicians by party, as listed below:
Nominator's rationale: - Following on from this renaming in December. Snappy ( talk) 19:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm ok with Independent politicians (Ireland), or whatever there is a consensus for. Snappy ( talk) 13:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I agree and have amended my original proposal for independent politicians to be the same. Snappy ( talk) 15:42, 7 January 2010 (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.

Even more rugby union 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: speedily rename all; it makes sense to do these because all the others have been recently changed. This is essentially a clean-up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming another 8 sub-categories of Category:Rugby union players, as listed below
Nominator's rationale: Rename to use "rugby union players" rather than "rugby union footballers". This a followup to the nomination of 104 categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 27#Rugby_union_players (which was supported without opposition), and to yesterday's group nomination of another 48 categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 5#More_rugby_union_players.
Yesterday's nomination was closed as a speedy rename, and I have no objection to this one being closed in the same way.
I found these few stragglers by doing this category search, and think this will be the last of them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:05, 6 January 2010 (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:Mark

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:Mark (currency). Jafeluv ( talk) 09:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Mark to Category:Mark (money)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Mark (money). The meaning of the word Mark is otherwise ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 21:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per usual, more dignified convention, to Category:Mark (currency). Mark (money) is not really the "main article" - it isn't even in the category, though it should be. It just covers the early history in Germany & a couple of other places. Nearly all the articles in the category were currencies - ie the mark was/is the top denomination, like pound (currency) and others. Johnbod ( talk) 00:19, 11 January 2010 (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:Siraiki people, Category:Saraikistan

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:  Relisted at 2010 JAN 18 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose rename of Category:Siraiki people to Category:Seraiki people in alignment with the page Seraiki people. Also rename cat. Category:Saraikistan to Category:Seraikistan for similar reason. Acejet ( talk) 09:16, 6 January 2010 (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:Gurjar

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:  Relisted at 2010 JAN 18 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Gurjar to Category:Gujjar people
Nominator's rationale: First of all, the very name of this category "Gurjar" is an alternative name for its main article Gujjar, which is an ethnic group (Gurjar is a redirect). Also, because the category intends to list people pertaining to the ethnic group, this category should be renamed "Gujjar people." Acejet ( talk) 08:59, 6 January 2010 (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:Muhajir and Category:Muhajir (Pakistan)

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:  Relisted at 2010 JAN 18 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose merge of Category:Muhajir and Category:Muhajir (Pakistan), and rename the resultant merged cat. to "Muhajir people."
Nominator's rationale: Similiarly to the one above, both these cat. list people that belong to the Muhajir (Pakistan) ethnic group. The second category Category:Muhajir (Pakistan) has the same purpose to that of Category:Muhajir, therefore having two is useless. I propose a merge and rename to the proposed title. Acejet ( talk) 08:59, 6 January 2010 (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:Merited Artists of Albania

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: withdrawn. My mistake, category only contained two pages at the time of nominating (one being a WikiProject). — ξ xplicit 19:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Merited Artists of Albania ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small, eponymous category, no foreseeable expansion. — ξ xplicit 08:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose remaining Category:Merited Artists of Albania Good thing I opened my talk page to see your proposal, otherwise all my work would have been vain. The list included around 100 albanian artists that were given the award in 40 years. There were only two awards for artists in Socialist Albania: Merited Artist of Albania and People's Artist of Albania. As the latter was given to fewer peopole at least 100 artists had the "Merited Artist" award. In addition you have similar pages such as Category:Merited Artists of Ukraine, or other former soviet republics that are smaller than Albania. Furthermore as I explain in the talk page of the article, many of these artists were unknown internationally but they are being recognized now or post-mortem and many of them will have their articles as they were extremely impartant for the albanian arts. Explicit, love your signature btw!!! sulmues ( talk) --Sulmues 15:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this is not an eponymous category, is not small and has scope for expansion when further articles are written. It contains holders of a national award and as such passes the usual criteria. Occuli ( talk) 16:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Occuli. None of the 3 points in the nominator's rationale seems to stand up to scrutiny, and unlike most award categories this one does seem to be defining for its recipients. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:12, 6 January 2010 (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 Game categories

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 15:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent article, Game (rapper), as rapper has shortened his stage name. Needs disambiguation as well for clarity. — ξ xplicit 07:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 21:18, 6 January 2010 (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:Polish child journalists

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/delete (already empty). – Black Falcon ( talk) 23:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Polish child journalists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. because it is overcategorization and small without potential for growth. Bejnar ( talk) 04:26, 6 January 2010 (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 locomotives

Category:Prussian locomotives
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:Locomotives of Prussia and convert into a "by country" category. A "by railway" subcategory may be created if needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Prussian locomotives to Category:Prussian state railways locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the collective name used to describe a collection of sub companies held by the Prussian governments. The main article is at Prussian state railways. This follows the form in Category:Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 05:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose as unnecessary. Otherwise we need to change all the Locomotives of Foo to Foo state railways locomotives for all "by country" locomotives. Locomotives of Prussia would be in line with the Wiki convention for "by country" locomotives.-- Bermicourt ( talk) 21:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Either this category is a by country or by railway categroy. This may be an exception where it is both and since there is a main article, it should follow that name. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The Prussian state railways is a collective name for a number of state-run, but otherwise independent railway companies. Hence the lower case title. It can only be a "by country" category, unlike some of the other German state railway categories which could be argued either way (but as I have explained that would rule out private companies from that state being included). -- Bermicourt ( talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted from CfD 2009 December 12 to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (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:Württemberg locomotives
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:Locomotives of Württemberg and convert to a "by country" category. A subcategory for "by railway" may be created if needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Württemberg locomotives to Category:Royal Württemberg State Railways locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the name of the railway rather then the state they operated in. This follows the form in Category:Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose. This will exclude locomotives of private railways manufactured in Württemberg. Locomotives of Württemberg would be in line with the Wiki convention for "by country" locomotives. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 21:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Well it is included in the by railway category. If there are more locomotives that should be included in a by country category, then that category can also be set up. By company and by country are two different category schemes and they should not normally have identical contents since there is normally more then one railway company. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted from CfD 2009 December 12 to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (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:Western Australian locomotives
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 rename. The proposed category may be created if needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Western Australian locomotives to Category:Western Australian Government Railways locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the name of the railway rather then the state they operated in. Some of the included articles are not clear as to what railway owned them, so one or two articles might need removing after the rename. I don't see a reason to categorize locomotives more finely then at the national level. No need to break down by state. This follows the form in Category:Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose and Keep separate -' WA Locomotives' is a very different range of locomotives - to that of the WAGR - and there are even disambig issues where class names are used for different locomotives in the two categories - as a consequence this move suggestion is not suitable.

A 'national level'(?) suggests a lack of knowledge of railway locomotive classification systems between states of australia, and internally within each state over time - and is problematic - this is a large state with different range of railways. The category locomotives by railway specifically has 'company' at its lead sentence/dsecriptor, and is not relevent to the australian context - the australian wikiproject has had some hair raising attempts at calling 'government railways' - 'companies', and conflating historical innaccuracies to have neat 'fixes' - this looks horribly like another attempt Satu Suro 14:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

So you are basically saying that these are incorrectly classified under Category:Locomotives by railway? Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes - in the ideal case there should be WAGR locomotives as a sub category to WA locomotives, and not even considered as a subset or part of the of the alleged model category (ie the other way around to your proposal) - same for tasmania Satu Suro 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggestion - that the two categories exist - and sufficient qualification in the criteria of the category so that there is no potential for mis-application of the categories Satu Suro 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted from CfD 2009 December 12 to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Please could someone close these rather than re-list? I cannot see anyone else the slightest interested - as the distinctions are between steam and diesel - not WAGR and Western Australian - each state in Australia should have separate steam and diesel categories - the national level is pointless - Australia has had over 7 separate rail systems with similar named locomotives - the separation is important, as there were different gauges and other issues that make clumping them together a real misnomer. I do not see how I can get consensus with myself, unless someone has a good idea? Satu Suro 13:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose and keep separate - I do hope a closing person understands there is no consensus to date Satu Suro 14:39, 6 January 2010 (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:Tasmanian locomotives
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: do not rename. The proposed category may be created if needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Tasmanian locomotives to Category:Tasmanian Government Railways locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to reflect the name of the railway rather then the state they operated in. Some of the included articles are not clear as to what railway owned them, so one or two articles might need removing after the rename. This follows the form in Category:Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose per West Australian system - there were many separate and different railway companies and systems in tasmania - to claim that it is a TGR grab all and is ok - goes against the general nature of trying to get an accurate picture of Tasmanian rail history on wikipedia. Category:Locomotives by railway - if checked carefully in most cases was for specific railway companies - the Australian railway systems had originally government rail systems and private systems, and more recently have in most cases separate systems - so to change back to an outmoded government systems show no understanding of the history of the tasmanian railway system. Satu Suro 14:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Please see the western Australian proposal above Satu Suro 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose per SatuSuro. Aaroncrick ( talk) Review me! 00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggestion - that the two categories exist - and sufficient qualification in the criteria of the category so that there is no potential for mis-application of the categories Satu Suro 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted from CfD 2009 December 12 to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose and keep separate if the new category ever gets created Satu Suro 14:41, 6 January 2010 (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:Saxon locomotives
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:Locomotives of Saxony, and change into a "by country" category. A by-company subcategory may be set up if needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Saxon locomotives to Category:Royal Saxon State Railways locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This appears to be the proper name for the railway company. This follows the form in Category:Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose. This will exclude locomotives of private railways manufactured in Saxony. Locomotives of Saxony would be in line with the Wiki convention for "by country" locomotives. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 21:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Well it is included in the by railway category. If there are more locomotives that should be included in a by country category, then that category can also be set up. By company and by country are two different category schemes and they should not normally have identical contents since there is normally more then one railway company. If you are going to claim that this is a by country category, then the by company category should be removed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted from CfD 2009 December 12 to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. Further to my oppose comment above. There are 15 articles on LDE locomotives as well as the one on the Saxonia (locomotive) already in this category, none of which were built by the Royal Saxon State Railways. And there are probably more to follow. So this renaming would be entirely incorrect. As stated, if we must rename it then Locomotives of Saxony is more accurate. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 17:21, 18 January 2010 (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:Sports coaches

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. Ruslik_ Zero 20:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Sports coaches to Category:Sports coaches and instructors
Propose renaming its parent category Category:Sports instruction to Category:Sports coaching and instruction
Nominator's rationale: One subcat of Category:Sports coaches, and its subsubcats, already use "instructors", and a rename will also head off the creation of a competing and redundant Category:Sports instructors or Category:Sports coaching. The categories can always be split some time in the future if there evolves a huge pile of such articles and people feel that the distinction is important enough for category speciation. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Modified to include two rename nominations and properly discuss them. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Per coach (sport), coaches are for team sports. From what I see, instructors are for other types of activities, so combining these does not make sense. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Question: Would you care to revise that statement? Here's a direct quotation (emphasis added) of the first line of the article you've cited: "In sports, a coach or manager is an individual involved in the direction, instruction and training of the operations of a sports team or of individual sportspeople." — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Which gets you to sports which states Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome (winning or losing),. So if I have an exercise instructor, how does that fit the above description? The meaning of coaches is clear and I don't agree that coaches and instructors are the same in normal usage. In some cases coaches might be more closely associated with an instructor. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Huh? "More closely" than what? Anwyay, I'm not following your reasoning, as you appear to be objecting on the basis that something in one of the categories is miscategorized. If it is, then why not just move it? As for your specific question, I don't see the issue anwyay. Virtually every athlete has an exercise/fitness instructor/trainer, under one title or another, and following that person's instruction is part of athletic training a.k.a. coaching. Thirdly, the article you mis-cited is a wretched stub (though not tagged as one at the time), flagged on both its face and its talk page as being competely biased toward US collegiate team sports, and inadquately sourced, so it is not a reliable indicator of much of anything to do with this category. Last, "not the same in any normal usage"? I am a pool instructor (a VNEA certified one). I tend to call myself a pool coach. No one to date has ever been confused between these two concepts so far as I can tell. E.g. no one has asked me "what team are you coaching?", nor wondered whether I like being a coach better than an instructor.
I think you personally have an internal definition of these words, that doesn't match actual usage. See Dictionary.com "coach", entries 5-7. The entry that applies to sports applies in the same way as the term applies to scholastics, music and acting, plus team sports. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Further "evidence": Category:Sports coaches is a subcat of Category:Sports instruction. There are no Category:Sports coaching or Category:Sports instructors. The distinction you want to draw is not one that has been drawn at Wikpedia. - I'm adding a category to this nom, actually. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note second category added to nomination at this point. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Alternate proposal: Use Category:Sports coaches and trainers and Category:Sports coaching and training instead of "instructor" and "instruction" variants, if that will make anyone feel better. I don't care, really. The point is to indicate that the categories are not exclusive to a particular job title when the job is the same. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – in the UK Peter Coe was always described as the coach for his son Seb Coe (and he coached no-one else). Tennis players usually hire a coach. So I don't see that coach has any inherent connection with a team. Tiger Woods presumably has some sort of coach/trainer/instructor. Singers and actors have 'voice coaches'. I would be perfectly happy to use 'coaches' throughout, to include trainers/instructors (the distinction being, to me, hard to determine). Occuli ( talk) 16:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
My concern with that, and why I've suggested either of two multi-term renames, is that it won't make it clear that the categories are for people in that line of work regardless what they're calling themselves and this will just lead to the redundant categories being recreated, since, well, they were already created once. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I see merit to this proposal. The only reason I don't write down my full support is that I feel I am not knowledgable enough in sports. Debresser ( talk) 19:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Relisting note I have relisted this category because the discussion seems to have just fizzled out rather than reaching a stable "no consenus". May I suggest that it might help if editors were to find some references to reliable sources to clarify the meanings and usage of the two terms in a sprting context? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think the problem is that every sport/field has a different idea of what these terms mean, and even different levels within the same sport (i.e. "coaches" often have managerial and fiscal duties on professional teams, and the actual coaching is done by assistant coaches, while in a pro-am division just below that the situation may be very different). Citing sources is probably just going to lead to rathole arguments (is the FIFA version more weighty than the snooker definition, which might be better than the American college football meaning, and...), when the idea I'm trying to get to is that at the level of this overarching category, none of that actually matters; we just need a place to put them all for now and they'll sort into more logical and actually distinct instead of muddled subcats later. See below. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Summary: The idea is that there is a huge amount of overlap, and the terms are all over the place, resulting the creation of categories that cannot be kept straight from one another; this defeats the purpose of categories (clear navigation). I understand the idea that not everyone who goes by the term "coach" has the same job. This will shake out over time. I would be very surprised actually if this category did not subdivide in some way, maybe by team vs. non-team sports or by coach-trainers vs. coach-managers, or something. Right now it's just a mess. Consolidate it and see how it starts to bubble in different directions. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:13, 18 January 2010 (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:People from Azerbaijan

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. However membership in this category should not be based solely on place of birth. Ruslik_ Zero 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:People from Azerbaijan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Explicitly defined as being distinct from Category:Azerbaijani people, this one being for non-nationals who are nevertheless "from" there. Do we really want to set up such a parallel structure? (The one included article is about a Russian person who was born in present-day Azerbaijan, when it was part of the Russian Empire.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Yes we want. It is not "parallel". It is "complementary". A similar one exists: Category:People from Belarus, which someone also wanted to delete (under old title): Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_19#Category:Belarus_born_people. All "keep" arguments expressed there are equally valid here. Like, go and try to delete Category:People from Alabama. The whole ethnic-national categorization is a mess. "Azerbaijani people" puts into one basket both citizens of Azerbaijan and Ethnic Azeris from all over the world. Category:People from Azerbaijan is at least clean-cut, unambiguous and verifiable. - Altenmann >t 01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The common counter argument is that place of birth is not generally defining, whereas nationality is. I'd like to see where current consensus is on this issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Like I said, I'd like to see how you delete Category:People from Alabama :-). Place of birth is just as important as date of birth, e.g., is very defining in quite a few laws of citizenship all over the world, and quite often a matter of pride of the corresponding places. - Altenmann >t 02:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Technically, "People from Alabama" is not for people born in Alabama. If you are treating it that way you are misusing it, at least in the traditional WP sense. Consensus on this might have changed. But many birthplace categories have been deleted in the past, including "People born in Ukraine". Even the Belarus one you cite was changed from a place of birth category. Originally, place of birth is not what the "People from FOO" categories was meant to categorize. You've defined the nominated category as a place-of-birth category; we need to determine how it's to be used. (I don't think date of birth is defining either, which is why we don't categorize by it. Year of birth is categorized to place the person in time.) Anyway, I'm attempting to measure current consensus on these issues; as the creator of the category, you obviously want to keep the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • categories such as 'people from Alabama' not only include place of birth people but also the location a person lived for any period of time. This is why many US people have multiple state and/or city categories associated with them. It is also why migrants from one country to another have categories showing where they migrated from and where they migrated to. Look at the facts. Hmains ( talk) 06:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • As I said, place of birth is not what they were originally developed for and for a long time consensus has been against categorizing merely by place of birth. The "facts" of what isolated users have (sometimes mistakenly) done in practice doesn't always conform to what the majority has intended. And yes, people live in more than one place in their life, so a person can have multiple "people from ..." categories without having a birthplace category. Anyway, let's stay on topic. This isn't about "People from Alabama". It's obviously an appropriate category because there are people from Alabama. This one is somewhat different in several ways, mainly because it includes in its definition people who were born in Azerbaijan. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as an effective means to group by this defining characteristic. Alansohn ( talk) 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Question. If the category is kept can we make it clear from the definition that this is not for people who happen to be born in Azerbaijan but have a different nationality? I would expect it to primarily be used for people from Azerbaijan when it was part of the Soviet Union or Russian Empire, etc. It still only has one article so it's difficult to know how it will be used, if at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2010 (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:Year Zero

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. – Black Falcon ( talk) 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Year Zero to Category:Year Zero (game)
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, which is apparently about the alternate reality game at Year Zero (game). — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename Sounds reasonable to me, since "Year Zero" has meanings other than the ARG. Drewcifer ( talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support Rename to clarify content of category. Alansohn ( talk) 21:28, 6 January 2010 (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.

Ambiguously-named video game 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 all as nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support all . Otherwise quite confusing names of the categories. - Altenmann >t 01:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support Renames to more clearly describe the content of these ambiguous categories. Alansohn ( talk) 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all, but to "game series", which would give the extra clarity a category name needs. Surely some of these are tv programmes etc also? Johnbod ( talk) 03:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • It would depend on which ones you're referring to specifically. Penny Arcade, for example, started as a webcomic, so "game series" wouldn't be appropriate, as there's only one game. "Series" in that case would more refer to the series of media "things" that have developed that are based on Penny Arcade. "(franchise)" could be used in this case, but I'm not sure that Penny Arcade rises to the level of what most would call a "franchise". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all Except for maybe Penny Arcade, none of these are the primary meaning for their terms. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Worms
Propose renaming Category:Worms to Category:Worms (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Worms (series). The meaning of the word Worms is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Wipeout
Propose renaming Category:Wipeout to Category:Wipeout (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguation. The meaning of the word Wipeout is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Nights
Propose renaming Category:Nights to Category:Nights (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguation. This is not the primary meaning of the word and its meaning is otherwise ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Pitfall
Propose renaming Category:Pitfall to Category:Pitfall (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating. The word Pitfall is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Penny Arcade
Propose renaming Category:Penny Arcade to Category:Penny Arcade (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating. The meaning of Penny Arcade is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Overlord
Propose renaming Category:Overlord to Category:Overlord (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguation. The meaning of Overlord is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Myth
Propose renaming Category:Myth to Category:Myth (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Myth (series). This is not the primary meaning and the meaning of the word is otherwise ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Hitman
Propose renaming Category:Hitman to Category:Hitman (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Hitman (series). This is not the primary meaning and the meaning of the word is otherwise ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Half-Life
Propose renaming Category:Half-Life to Category:Half-Life (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article The meaning of Half-Life (series). Half-Life is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Doom
Propose renaming Category:Doom to Category:Doom (franchise)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguation. Doom alone is ambiguous. The franchise includes video games, movies, books. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Diablo
Propose renaming Category:Diablo to Category:Diablo (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Diablo (series). The meaning of the word Diablo is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Contra
Propose renaming Category:Contra to Category:Contra (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Contra (series). The meaning of the word Contra is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Halo
Propose renaming Category:Halo to Category:Halo (series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Halo (series). The meaning of the word Halo is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_6&oldid=1142606177"