< September 25	September 27 >

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. Orlady's restructure has some support, but not enough to eliminate the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Log homes to Category:Log houses

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Speedy was opposed on the grounds that the main article was Log home, however it has since been moved to Log house, allowing for this to be standardised with the other categories in the tree without concern for the main article's name being different. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support or even speedy rename, as initial speedier. BHG had opposed because of a possible C2C/C2D conflict, but now that Nyttend has moved the main article, our two criteria are now in planetary alignment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as they are commonly called log homes. They are not commonly call log houses despite the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that all three parent categories and the main article now use "house," so it's unclear to me what you're basing this on, other than a personal preference? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The simple fact is that for over 50 years in print and on TV I never recall seeing log houses used! A simple goggle search shows 3,670,000 for log homes and 602,000 for log houses. And I did live in areas where these were built and where there was advertising for log homes and sample building along the sides of the roads. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Preliminary searching would seem to support your comments VW. That said, supporting my comments below, log cabin comes up even more often... - jc37 00:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Google words "house" and "home" and you'll see that it appears 7.4 billion times vs 25 billion for home. And yet we have decided to use "house" in place of "home" universally in category structures. Home is preferred by the real estate industry and "home buyers" for obvious marketing and emotional reasons, and that's perhaps why the term is more familiar to you. But I'd say that WP:EUPHEMISM might be said to apply: for these are houses. Finally, I haven't grown up around log structures the way you seem to have, but in my case log house is indeed the more common term, to these ears. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have to admit, I've never heard of log homes or log houses. I have heard of log cabins, however : ) - jc37 00:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If log cabin means the same thing, then that would be the preferred solution. I'm not sure that they are the same since cabin implies a single room or very small house. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. The anecodotal comments above are interesting, but they are only anecdotal. I prefer data: Google books gives 583,000 hits for "log house", but only 144,000 hits for "log home". Since the name is contested, this CfD should be paused if anyone wants to contest the WP:BOLD renaming of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Per BHG. Thanks for checking that out! Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No one says "mobile house," we say mobile home, and towards the other end of the economic spectrum I don't know anyone with a "beach home," but a few with a beach house, and in between some with houseboats but not homeboats. In the suburbs, tract shoppers browse model homes, not model houses, but a bit farther out you can buy farmhouses, but not farmhomes. My point is that we should use the vernacular. The move of log home to log house was entirely arbitrary and without discussion.- choster (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This category doesn't have an ideal name, but after looking at the current category structure and nomenclature, I don't think that "log houses" is the right name to change it to. This tiny category is subbed to Category:Log house architecture. Most articles about individual log houses and log cabins are not in this category, but are in the parallel category Category:Log house architecture in the United States‎, which in turn contains a pair of semi-redundant categories called "Log house architecture in the United States by state" and "Log cabins in the United States". Three of four pages in this category deal with log buildings in Canada, and the fourth is about a log building that was moved from Scandinavia to the United States. The title "Log house architecture" largely (but not completely) gets away from the need to worry about the distinctions between log cabins, log homes, and other types of log structures. For consistency with the rest of the hierarchy, it looks to me like this category should be eliminated, with 3/4ths of it becoming Category:Log house architecture in Canada‎, while the 4th page in the category should be recategorized in both Category:Log house architecture in the United States‎ and Category:Norwegian architecture. --Orlady (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What's with all this "making sense" stuff? : ) - jc37 20:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What Orlady said - jc37 20:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restructure per Orlady's suggestion. - Eureka Lott 15:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restructure per Orlady. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to agree with article name. They may be called log homes by promoters who want to make them sound cosy, but most people would agree using house as the descriptor is more accurate in the long run.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. A request to return this article to the title it used when created 8 years ago is in process. As noted there, there was no discussion on the move to the current name. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That move discussion is at Talk:Log house#Requested_move; it has currently been open for 7 days, and I suggest that the admin closing this discussion may want to take into account the result of that move discussion, whenever it is closed.

  It's a pity that Vegaswikian didn't post the link here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussion closed as "Not moved". --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - On a seperate but realated note, I have created a new category: Category:Log buildings and structures which is now the parent for this category. I hope to add other, non-house non-home structures to this category as well. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What led you to conclude that the problems in this category hierarchy would be resolved by creating another category with redundant/overlapping scope? --Orlady (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Log houses this is the better term, home when applied to buildings is always an attempt at positive marketing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French scientists & intellectuals) to Category:Grandes écoles (science)
• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French engineers) to Category:Grandes écoles (engineering)
• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French mechanical & civil engineers, materials scientists) to Category:Grandes écoles (mechanical and civil engineering)
• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French mining & nuclear engineers) to Category:Grandes écoles (mining and nuclear engineering)
• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French aerospace engineers) to Category:Grandes écoles (aerospace engineering)
• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French military engineers) to Category:Grandes écoles (military engineering)
• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French electrical & electronics engineers, computer scientists) to Category:Grandes écoles (electrical engineering)
• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French physical & chemical engineers) to Category:Grandes écoles (physical and chemical engineering)
• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French agronomists, biotechnologists & veterinarians) to Category:Grandes écoles (life sciences)
• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French politicians & civil servants) to Category:Grandes écoles (politics)
• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French economists) to Category:Grandes écoles (economics)
• Propose renaming Category:Grandes écoles (French economists & business people) to Category:Grandes écoles (economics and business)

Nominator's rationale: The categories are for the institutions and as written are clearly for French citizen alumni of said institutions. These all need to be renamed, or even deleted and merged back if this is over categorization. Also, the format in which pages are being listed in these categories is bizarre, with numbers, exclamation points and hashtags. An experienced editor needs to take a look at this mess. Bob247 (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually thinking that Delete All would be best. --Bob247 (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Blow it all up and start from scratch The hatnote of the parent category says that "the splitting has been made in order to make this typically French system more readable for non French people". I'm not convinced that this is true but I do know that as someone who understands the French system, I find the split arbitrary, confusing, unnecessary and not even consistent with the way in which these schools are officially organized. Moreover, categories for alumni should be separate from categories for schools and alumni should be grouped by school not by specialty to avoid the typical ambiguities that arise once you try to draw a clear line between, say, mechanical engineers and aerospace engineers. And the best way to group these by-school categories is by using the groups that exist in the French administrative system. (For instance, engineering schools have a well-defined official status with the Ministry of Higher Education and Research) Actually, I think it would be wise to look at the way similar categories are organized on fr.wiki. Ok, so my comment might not look like the most constructive but I really see no hope for this new structure. I am however willing to take part in efforts to find a better solution. Pichpich (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke em I'm afraid I agree with Pichpich: better to delete them all, have a bot move them all back to the main cat (without the weird sortkeys) and start from scratch... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the categories as they are All remarks above show a complete ignorance about the French system. Renaming the category "French politicians and civil servants" into "politics" is stupid and ridiculous... ENA is by definition a school for top civil servants, and Ecole polytechnique as well ; the fact that "politicians" come from those schools is a side effect... Many French politicians come from the Administration, which is a characteristics of the French "colbertist" state... The "Ecoles normales supérieures" are not only for scientists ; they train philosophers and literature specialists as well… Many French so called "intellectuals" (Bernard Henry Levy, Alain Finkielkraut) originate from Ecole normales but are NO scientsists… I am a professional and I know what I am talking about... It is a disaster for Wikipedia that a small pack of wiki "enthusiasts" might destroy an intelligent and structured work. I know quite a few professionals who have been discouraged for the rest of their life to edit in Wikipedia because one or two committed wiki users have destroyed their work. Guillaume2303 should know that "LAAS-CNRS" is much clearer than "Laboratory for Analysis and Architecture of Systems". 3 different users already told him that he was wrong setting up inappropriate categories like "Ecoles polytechniques" or "Ecoles nationales" which are non existent or completely irrelevant. He claims to have level 3 in French but has no idea about French spelling rules ! It is rather depressing discussing with people who have no idea about the subject… This attitude destroys the spirit of Wikipedia… What does Bob247 know about the French grandes écoles system ???? He claims to have a level 4 in French but he has no global account on WP ! Has this guy already edited on the French WP ?? I doubt it… Euroflux (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop ranting. I never set up the "Ecoles polytechniques" or "Ecoles nationales" categories. And if somebody doesn't know what he's talking about here (i.e., how to name categories and articles on Wikipedia), it evidently is you. How you can infer from my objection to you using incorrect category names that I am "very bitter about the French system" (which I actually have never claimed "to know so well") is beyond me. And as far as I can see, there are no users that have told me that I was wrong about "setting up stupid categories". There were some users who said that they agreed with you that the category "Grandes écoles" needed overhaul (which nobody has been denying here), nothing less, but also nothing more (and if you read closely, you'll see that they agreed with my point about the naming issue). Instead of ranting, you would do better trying to read what people say and trying to understand them correctly, instead of reading into their words whatever you want and then come up with wild accusations. For the last time: stop these personal attacks, or you will find yourself blocked from editing. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the comments above. Delete all those and re-attach to the parent category. that should be Category:Grandes écoles for all of them. Those categories make no sense whatsoever. --McSly (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the French WP, you wanted to remove the category DGA ; you promised to give an explanation but you never did ; and the category you wanted to remove was kept. You are a follower. Euroflux (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a warning under WP:NPA. Stop your acusations of bad faith or you will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, with possible fixing on exact desitnations in some cases. These are categories grouping schools by subject matter. Many of the people who study at these institutions of higher learning are not French, so we need to avoid implying they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There have been no more comments for a week now. Perhaps someone could close this? Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• New Vote, Upmerge to Category:Grandes écoles The justification for the particular breakdown is hard to see in many cases. Also there has been an odd mixing of alumni cats with school cats, that needs to be reconsidered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 00:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Allegations of state sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a technical nomination following the close of this discussion. One of the issues was that there are two categories that should be discussed together in order to reach a fair resolution of the question. So this new nomination is for that purpose. I have no opinion on the merits of this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original rational for the first category listed when nominated was: This category is extremely POV. A category containing only allegations of terrorism could allow for any country to be added, simply because someone once said that they were being terroristic... Jeancey (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Category:Organizations designated as terrorist be nominated as well, then? That's the most important "alleged polemic thing" type of category. "Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators" is just a technical consequence: we do not name it "Al-Qaeda facilitators" following that naming system Cambalachero (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add that to the nomination feel free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't add Category:Organizations designated as terrorist to this nomination. It raises some similar issues, but it has an important distinction: it attributes the allegations. I agree that it should be discussed, but in a separate discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, possibly listify. In the previous discussion, I argued that both of these articles should be discussed together. We should either keep categories of "alleged" things, or get rid of them; it would be horribly POV to delete allegations of state terrorism, but keep allegations against non-state entities. My own preference is strongly for getting rid of them, on several grounds.
  The most important factor with allegations is that they require no evidence or proof; they may be based on a mass of data, or on hearsay, or on malicious falsehood. That's no way to build a category, because it lumps together entirely different sorts of claim, and any attempt to tighten up the definition imposes subjective or arbitary inclusion criteria.
  In this case, we are dealing with two sides of one of the most contentious topics in international relations. Allegations of both types are common from various parties, and they are highly prejudicial charges. Articles appear in category listings without qualification or explanation, and when the category applies an unproven charge it applies a prejudicial label to the topic. That is not how WP:NPOV says that that such things should be handled; allegations should be attributed and explained, and the various views accorded due weight. We cannot do that with categories, which choice of a category binary choice: in the category or not in it.
  Thirdly, categorisation by allegation has repeatedly rejected in the past for a whole range of topics, as shown in this list. It would be perverse to keep it for such a contentious topic as terrorism, when we have already rejected it for alleged girlfriends of a prince, allegations of homophobia, suspected freemasonry, and alleged homosexuality.
  I have suggested possibly listifying these categories. I don't know whether that's workable, because inclusion criteria would be problematic, but a list can present and attribute different points of view. So if an editor wats to try making it work, and can avoid it becoming an attack page, they should be given the chance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the first to Category:State-sponsored terrorism and purge; delete the second. There are enough actual state-sponsored terrorism articles to justify a category, but the other theory-based ones should be booted out. All of the Al-Qaeda members should be in an Al-Qaeda category, and the others that are not clearly linked to Al-Qaeda should not be characterized as such. Also, what about Category:Alleged al-Qaeda recruiters‎?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who has the authority to say which one is state terrorism, and which one is merely an authoritarian government? Note that if we take a devoted communist publicaton, we may find that basically all governments that are not communists are state terrorism or something similar Cambalachero (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my reason s in the previous discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. My views on this matter haven't changed. They both involve extreme POV, and you can't add references to why something is in a category, so in my opinion, both should be deleted. Jeancey (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Per Cambalachero's reasoning - it is no one's job to decide what is (and what isn't) state terrorism. This category is clear-cut propaganda. Mar4d (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete categorization needs to be based on agreed upon and resolved facts. If allegations have been made along these lines, in reliable sources, this can be explained in articles. However, that is not enough to tag articles with this allegation. I would apply this same view to any other "alleged" categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Aztec food animal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete or at the very least rename to a less awkward title. I favor deletion because this type of categorization scheme would lead to an absurd amount of clutter on things like chicken, turkey, beef, pork and many other animals that are almost universally eaten. Last February, categories for culture-specific ingredients were deleted for the same sort of reason (see here) The best way to handle this content is through a list or simply an appropriately detailed section in the Aztec cuisine article. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator and per precedent. Being eaten by Aztecs is not a defining characteristic of some of these animals, because they are widely-eaten around the world. If started categorising turkey (bird) by all the difft nations and ethnic groups which eat it, we would clutter it with several hundred categories, which would be a huge impediment to navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Not a reasonable categorization of animals, as BHG's turkey argument shows clearly.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Pichpich--Ephert (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the fact that a certain national/civilzational group ate a given animal is not notable to the animal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: keep all. Though this was decided on the merits of the "county" argument, I feel it necessary to point out that those who would like to make highly controversial changes like this should avoid emptying categories first.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Londonderry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Gaelic football clubs in County Londonderry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Hurling clubs in County Londonderry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Wholly replaced by Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Derry, reflecting the fact that GAA clubs are organised within the GAA county of Derry rather than the obsolete administrative county of Londonderry. Brocach (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Gaelic football competitions in County Londonderry to Category:Gaelic football competitions in County Derry

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Gaelic football competitions are organised within the GAA county of Derry rather than the obsolete administrative county of Londonderry. Brocach (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have merged these categories into one discussion. There is no point in having 3 separate discussions about the same issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have merged the competitions discussion in here too, since it also relates to the same issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Emptied out of process. Please note that these categories listed for deletion have all been emptied out of process by the nominator (in these edits), who is actually seeking ratification of a pre-emptive action. The nominator should revert these moves, so that a consensus can be formed on whether to rename the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored. I have reverted the out-of-process emptying of these categories. If the consensus of the discussion is to rename the categories, the proposed new titles will be created at closing time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore emptied categories, delete the new ones, and don't rename. The nominator has mistaken the GAA county with the geographic county. These are geographical categories, part of the category tree under Category:County Londonderry, and they follow the convention for that category. This accords with WP:DERRY (part of WP:IMOS), which provides that we use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county, except where we are referring to an entity which uses one form or the other. In this case, the county GAA club calls itself Derry GAA, so that's the name we use for the club. But the categories refer to a geographical scope, rather than to club, so should follow the geographical convention.
  I appeal to editors not to try to unpick the convention at WP:IMOS. It represents a long-term consensus and has created stable naming to many areas which had been riven with disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The GAA county of Derry is a geographical area, almost but not quite coterminous wioth the old administrative county of Londonderry. Derry GAA is not, as BrownHairedGirl appears to think, a 'club', but the administrative organ responbsible for running GAA competitions in County Derry. Every GAA club in the county, without exception, refers to its location as County Derry and participates in competitions labelled as County Derry. No GAA entity anywhere uses the term Londonderry. In that sense, to label a club as belonging to "County Londonderry" is pointless, unless the point being made is a political one that belongs outside Wikipedia. Brocach (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether Derry GAA is a club or an administrative body is a nit-picking irrelevancy. It's a voluntary body running the sport in that area, so use whichever term you prefer.
    As above, these are categories by geographic county, and should follow the naming convention for that geographical category. I was afraid that you would suggest that i am trying to make a political point, and hope you will back off that line. All I am trying to do here is to maintain a consistency of terminology in accordance with a long-standing naming convention.
    And regardless of what you think is the right outcome, please revert the out-of-process move and let this be decided by consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please moderate your tone - it is not a "nit-picking irrelevancy" to point out that the body that runs Gaelic games in the GAA county of Derry is not a mere "club" but the county-wide administrative organ of the largest sports organisation in Ireland. You have not addressed the key point that "County Derry", referring to the GAA county in which all of the relevant clubs and competitions operate, is a geographical area. No GAA club or competition is associated with the obsolete administrative county of "Londonderry", nor has any GAA club or competition ever been identified with "Londonderry". If you deny (which I note that you haven't) that you are in fact seeking for political reasons to resist this use of the proper name of the GAA county of Derry, I am prepared to accept that your proposal to revert to a term that no-one uses in connection with the GAA is pointless rather than political. Brocach (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I created as new categories "Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Derry", etc - there is nothing whatever to prevent the creation of new categories and the Derry ones serve a real purpose since they group together clubs and competitions of Derry GAA under the name of theat GAA county. I then proposed here, in the proper place, the deletion of the now redundant categories referring to "Londonderry" GAA clubs. BrownHairedGirl has taken it upon her/himself to troll round dozens of pages deleting every instance of the new and validly created categories. There is nothing "process" about that - it is sheer vandalism. I will reinstate every instance of the new categories, but leaving the useless "Londonderry GAA" categories in place until others with a more constructive attitude than BrownHairedGirl have a chance to contribute to the discussion. Brocach (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, your name point that is nit-picking. It's a sporting body which has chosen its own name, as it entitled to do. Whether it's a tiny affair or a section of a national organisation doesn't alter the fact that it has named itself "Derry GAA", and is commonly named as such, so per per WP:COMMONNAME, that's what we call it.
        Please don't editwar over the categories. You are quite entitle dti create new categories, but not to empty old ones in order to do so.
        And once again, please stop the offensive allegations of a political motive. There is a directly applicable consensus guideline at WP:DERRY, and that's what I am following. Per WP:AGF, do not make any assumptions about my personal views.
        Take a look at the parent Category:Sport in County Londonderry. It contains cricket clubs, golf clubs, a fishing club, a rugby club, etc. It has a geographical category for soccer (Category:Association football clubs in County Londonderry), containing clubs regardless of what league they play in. The same applies to the other 31 similar categories in Category:Sport in Ireland by county, such as Category:Sport in County Kildare. It has geographical subcats for rugby union and soccer, even though neither of those sports has a Kildare league ... and similarly, Kildare has a geographical category for GAA clubs, just as Derry/Londonderry has.
        Now, if you want to reorganise the whole categorisation of GAA clubs, you might have a point. I believe that in some areas (Roscommon?) some clubs close to a county border are affiliated to the neighbouring county; I don't know how widespread that is because I follow only a few local junior teams. I'm sure you know more about the structure than I do, but it may be that it would be better to categorise clubs by the county board to which they are affiliated (rather than the county they are located in) using the names of the county boards. The new categs might be called something like Category:Kildare GAA clubs, Category:Derry GAA clubs. Or maybe we should do both; have geographical and county board categories. But if we are going to start categorising by county board rather than by geography, let's do it systematically across all 32 counties. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have not accused you of a political motive, nor, incidentally, have you denied that you have one. If you can show me any offensive allegation I will be utterly shocked. I am not edit warring: I created new, useful and valid "Derry GAA" categories, and for the time being they can sit alongside the patently useless "Londonderry GAA" categories until this discussion is resolved. But you are probably right that I know a lot more about Derry and the GAA than you do - I would not ordinarily make such assumptions but, for example, you do not appear to know that Derry GAA is among the counties that have clubs in their competitions from outside the former administrative boundaries. No-one is disputing, incidentally, that Derry GAA has the right to call itself Derry GAA - the issue here is whether the WP Category should refer to the county within which the clubs and competitions of Derry GAA actually exist - i.e. the GAA county, not the former administrative County Londonderry. Brocach (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have twice accused me of having a political motive, and twice I have explained that my motive is simply to follow the naming conventions. Again, please stop.
            Also, your talk of "Londonderry GAA" categories is a straw man. Look again at the category titles: none of them refers to "Londonderry GAA". There has never been any such entity, and if any categories or articles referred to "Londonderry GAA", I'd want it fixed immediately. What we do have is a category of clubs in County Londonderry. That's a geographical area which is no longer used for administrative purposes, but remains a ceremonial county with defined and widely understood borders. Wikipedia uses it for geographical categorisation of all topics: schools, buildings, tourism, people, as well as sport.
            If Derry GAA includes clubs from outside the county, then per WP:V please provide a reliable source so that editors can verify that and discuss how to handle it. Just saying that you know more doesn't help the discussion; set out the facts, and then editors can discuss what to do about them. I assume that your claim is true, which is why I made a suggestion above to which you have not responded. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. In the meantime, please don't just describe something as absurd; try to explain why you think that it is inappropriate to categorise GAA clubs by the same geographical framework as we categorise other sporting clubs, which is the traditional 32 counties of Ireland, on the standard borders. And also, if you want to use the GAA's specialist definition of the county, the name should not be the same as that of the standard terminology. Calling it "County Derry" will be read by many readers as meaning the traditional county, rather than the GAA's unique usage. (note for example that County Derry is just a redirect to County Londonderry). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I tire of pointing this out, BrownHairedGirl, but I have nowhere accused you of having a political motive. As this discussion is about precision of language you do not help your case by misreading what is in front of you.
              Please read the definition of GAA county. A GAA county is the geographical area within which GAA clubs and competitions are organised. In many cases, clubs from a neighbouring administrative county are sometimes admitted to competitions in that GAA county, and vice versa, usually where they play a sport that does not provide sufficient local competitors; in the case of Derry, for example, this has happened with every neighbouring county. You seem to know that this happens in Roscommon. If you take the trouble to read Derry GAA you will find a (sourced) reference to this having happened in Derry; that page needs a lot of updating and I will in time add (sourced) references to current or very recent examples, e.g. Ardboe playing in County Derry camogie competitions. I will pass over the suggestion that the GAA's usage of "County Derry" is unique. The point here is that, for the GAA, its clubs and competitions, only Derry is correct. Brocach (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Brocach, read what you wrote. You posited a political bias twice above, and now seem to be trying to make some aritificial distinction between a prejudicial suggestion and a direct accusation.
                The substantive problem here is that the well-defined geographical county has a much wider usage than the GAA's own specialist definition. If we are going to categorise articles according to the geographical scope of the GAA county boards, then we should use terminology which makes it clear that the common usage of "county foo" does not apply. Please look again at my suggestion above of Category:Derry GAA clubs etc.
                However, such a change should not be made piecemeal. Since the mismatch of county definitions applies to several GAA county boards, we should adopt a common approach for all such counties. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I never once accused you of anything, and you declined the opportunity to show where I did. Let's leave it there since I wouldn't want to patronise you by explaining what plain English-languages phrases mean. Brocach (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You made the allegation twice. 1) "pointless, unless the point being made is a political one that belongs outside Wikipedia". "If you deny (which I note that you haven't) that you are in fact seeking for political reasons".
                    Demanding that another editor deny a bias is just a difft way of makking an allegation. Please stop it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Do I really need to explain the meaning of the word "if"? Or "deny"? Pffft Brocach (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We both know what deny means. There is nothing to deny unless an allegation is being made. Asking a question like that makes the allegation. (I have never denied sinking the Titanic, because nobody has alleged it. Asking me to deny carries a clear intent to allege). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Since we're talking about a Gaelic organization - Derry would be the appropriate name. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the approach taken in WP:IMOS. If we start choosing difft category names depending on which side of the religious-cultural divide a category relates to, then we turn the category names into a POV battleground. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that is precisely the approach taken in WP:IMOS which specifically excepts the GAA County from the "Londonderry" usage. As all of the clubs and competitions covered by the categories proposed for deletion are the sole property of Derry GAA, Benkenobi18 is exactly right. Brocach (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. IMOS says "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles, except when referring to the GAA county of Derry." The pre-existing category refers to the former administrative and currently ceremonial county of Londonderry, which is named that way per IMOS. You want to base a a category on the GAA county, which is called Derry; we agree that there is not, and never has been, such a thing as "Londonderry GAA" or the "County Londonderry board of the GAA". Fine, so call the category the "GAA county of Derry", or skip the word county, so it's clear which meaning is being used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As long as it is dealing with the geographical or political county it should be referred to as County Londonderry. Since all the items in that category are about the geographical counties there is no reason this should be different no matter what the organisation calls it. This isn't about the name of an organisation (in which case County Derry would be definitely the correct choice) but the area in which it operates. The organisation is the Derry GAA, not County Derry, County Derry GAA or variation thereof. Would support having the categories named as clubs in the Derry GAA if the other county boards categories are made consistent. Canterbury Tail talk 11:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This misses the point that a GAA county is as much a geographical area as a (current or former) administrative county. Brocach (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brocach, a GAA county is a geographical area with a much more limited usage than the traditional counties, and they share the same name as a much better-known entity. If you want to categorise clubs by their affiliation to the Derry GAA, that can be done without using ambiguous terminology simply by calling the category: Category:Derry GAA clubs. I have suggested this several times in the course of the discussion; please could you respond to it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • GAA counties "...share the same name as a much better-known entity..." - this of course is true for most GAA counties but not all. One of the exceptions is County Derry, which does not share the official name of the former administrative county with which it is substantially coterminous. The whole reason that we are having this discussion is that in the geographical area concerned, GAA clubs, competitions , committees etc. only exist within "County Derry", and not within "County Londonderry" which, in essence, the Association does recognise. As to your suggestion about altering county categories for all GAA clubs, that would be fine if it applied to other sports for which such categories exist, so that e.g. Rugby union clubs in County Kildare became Category:Kildare Rugby union clubs, but your specific proposal of Category:Derry GAA clubs is unacceptable because it is ambiguous (Derry is the name of the city, County Derry is the name of the GAA county). Brocach (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "County Derry" is a common alternative name for the geographical county amongst those who don't use the term "Londonderry". (see a Google News search: none of the hits refer to the GAA.) The GAA's alternative definition of the county is a secondary usage. Any organisation can define geography however it likes for its own purposes, but Wikipedia categories need to be unambiguously named, and using a common name to mean something else will create endless errors and disputes in categorisation.
          Your suggestion of applying the same renaming to rugby unions clubs is misplaced. Rugby union does not organise on county lines, so the RU categories are simply geographical locators based on the traditional counties whose boundaries have existed since the 19th century, in the same way as all the other Categories by county of Ireland.
          Your point about Derry being the name of city can be solved by renaming Derry GAA, and if you want to start a requested move discussion on that, this CfD can be held until the RM discussion closes. But if you're happy for the head article to be at Derry GAA, that's what we use for the category names (see WP:CFD/S#C2D.
          If Derry GAA doesn't recognise County Londonderry, that's its privilege, and it can use whatever terminology it likes. But Wikipedia can't go down the road of renaming geographical areas based on the various political preferences of difft organisations, and geographical categorisation doesn't work if the same term is used in parallel categories to mean difft areas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Although I have a life I am sorely tempted to check out your claim that not one of 439,000 Google hits for "County Derry" refer to the GAA, an organisation that I believe to be present in every single parish of the county. But you have of course checked them all out, so as a betting man I daren't challenge you.
            That said, as you have already noted "County Derry is a is a common alternative name" for those who live in what you would nevertheless have us call County Londonderry. The thing that you seem reluctant to concede is that County Derry is the one and only name for the GAA county, which is not and never has been known as County Londonderry.
            Allow me to make one new point. County boundaries - in the GAA or in local government - are not fixed immutably. What e.g. "County Dublin" meant in 1940 is not precisely what it means now, either as GAA county or as administrative county. But by and large, the 32 traditional Counties of Ireland correspond to the GAA counties within the island so closely that it would not make sense to create a whole new array of categories. Most people know that county boundaries are mutable, so that what constitutes County X for one purpose might not map exactly onto what County X is in another context. It follows that no-one expects "County Derry", the GAA county, to map inch for inch to the now obsolete "County Londonderry" (which as you probably know can mean the county with or without the city formerly known as Londonderry). The sensible way around this is to have GAA links to the GAA county of Derry, and to use County Londonderry for links that relate to the administrative creation. Brocach (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Brocach, please stop these allegations. You say "what you would nevertheless have us call County Londonderry". It's not me deciding that, it's the longstanding guideline at WP:IMOS. I have no expressed my own views on what terminology I use personally, and don't intend to. You may or may not like the guideline, but once again please WP:AGF and stop trying to cast aspersions on an editor trying to uphold a guideline.
              As to Google, you evidently didn't check out the link, because if you had done so you would have seen that it was as labelled a Google News search, with 503 hits rather than thousands. (I searched Google News because per WP:COMMONNAME it concentrates reliable sources).
              Your point about county boundaries is mistaken. The boundaries of County Dublin with Dublin City were revised in the 1990s, but their meaning has been defined clearly at all times, and they mean the same thing whether we are talking about water supply or local elections or the location of sports clubs. You claim that "what constitutes County X for one purpose might not map exactly onto what County X is in another context"; can you provide any evidence of that other in GAA usage? I'm not aware of any other examples, and although some Dail constituencies cross county lines, they do not use the word "county" in their names.
              If you don't want to make a new array of categories, then don't. But if you want to categorise according to the GAA's definition of a county, then don't use terminology which means something different in every other usage. That is Humpty Dumpty's logic: ""When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." Taking that approach to category names just misleads and confuses readers, and it is easily avoidable. If you want to use a GAA county as the geographical unit, then use a category name which makes doesn't imply that it is the same thing as the administrative/ceremonial county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am worried that this is too much of a dialogue, we need to hear from others. But for now I will just respond to the new points you raise.
                When I said "what you would nevertheless have us call County Londonderry" I was not "casting aspersions" or suggesting that you personally endorsed the view that this was the correct term: but you are actually seeking to maintain that as the geographical label in these GAA categories, and whether you are doing that from political or other motives is of no interest to me - I just want WP entries and categories for County Derry GAA clubs and competitions to use the term that is appropriate for County Derry GAA clubs and competitions.
                You acknowledge that administrative county boundaries shift. It does not follow that GAA county boundaries identically and instantaneously shift - they don't, as traditionally GAA county boundaries have followed Catholic parish boundaries with the odd shift to accommodate neighbouring-county teams that have insufficient competition in their 'home' county. The GAA has been very slow to respond to the creation of new admin counties, such as Fingal which is an anomaly still technically under Dublin jurisdiction. Your Humpty Dumpty quote is thus misplaced: the extent of a GAA county is determined by one entity (the GAA), and that of an admin county by another (the relevant government); neither contests the right of the other to make that determination, and I as a GAA man do not assert that the only valid definition of "county X" is "GAA county X". I only want Wikipedia to reflect the fact that GAA counties are not always precisely the same as "official" counties. For you and anyone else, "county" can mean what you want it to mean; for the GAA, the meaning is determined by the GAA.Brocach (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • My point remains simply that if the GAA (or any other private body) want to adopt a private definition of a county, then any categories created on that basis should make it clear that the title refers to the GAA's definition rather than to the common definition used for all other purposes.
                  In this case, we could use Category:Derry GAA clubs, Category:Clubs affiliated to Derry GAA, or a more verbose Category:GAA clubs in the GAA County of Derry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • All the other categories in this area are quite clearly based on geographical boundaries and not governing body for the sport. As a result County Derry is not appropriate for this categorisation. They link to the geographic counties, not GAA counties or governing GAA body. Canterbury Tail talk 11:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • County Derry - the GAA county - is a real place, you know. It is as much a "geographic county" as the former local government unit of County Londonderry. Brocach (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That's not true. The GAA's definition of County Derry is used only by the GAA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Londonderry is the accepted use for the ceremonial county. Unless we want to realign these to the local councils, we should keep this category, as we have other by county categories for NI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "ceremonial county" of Londonderry does not have anything to do with the GAA. The "ceremonial county" is more or less extinct, whereas the GAA county of Derry is alive and well. Brocach (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The linking of "Gaelic Athletic Association" with a "County Londonderry" is a misnomer as neither recognises or uses the other. To combine them contravenes policy V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.203.86 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read any of the above? This category is either about GAA clubs in the county of Londonderry, or in the GAA county of Derry. "GAA clubs in County Derry" is not an acceptable title as there is no "County Derry", either geographically or in the GAA's eyes, not to mention that the other GAA categories link to the geographical county. Why should this one be an exception? — Jon C.^ॐ 16:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is surely obvious: in nearly every case the GAA county (which is a geographical county, by the way) shares a name with the current or former administrative county. That has never been the case in County Derry. Your assertion that "there is no County Derry" is just silly. Brocach (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• New proposal Forget the areas of local government arguments. Stick to the GAA. If a private club wants to organise itself in an area that straddles Tipperary, Laoise and Offaly and wants to call that area "Blue Cheese", then Blue Cheese it is (as long as it's notable). If the GAA wants to pretend that New York is a county, then it's a county (as long as it's notable). So I propose to rename all such articles per the GAA's own deluded / anachronistic naming conventions. So rename

Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Londonderry to Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Derry GAA

Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Tipperary to Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Tipperary GAA which neatly avoids the North Tipp / South Tipp connundrum

Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Dublin to : Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Dublin GAA which neatly avoids the Fingal / South Dublin / DL-R connundrum. And so on. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion is about categories, not articles.

  If you want to pursue that proposal, it would be better done as a separate discussion, because its scope extends way beyond this nomination.

  However, I see no reason to exclude the GAA from the standard geographical categorisation scheme for Ireland, which is based on the traditional 32 counties. In those cases where the GAA counties differ from the standard counties, it may be appropriate to create parallel categories for Foo GAA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? What article? Do I need to go to specsavers because I seem to see the word Category there 6 times. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, not at all sure what Foo GAA is, is this a Continuity/Real GAA? And Laurel Lodged, where is Laoise? Disagree with LaurelLodged's proposal to create categories such as "GAA clubs in Tipperary GAA" since this is tautologous. The only clubs in Tipperary GAA are GAA clubs in County Tipperary, just as the only clubs in Derry GAA are GAA clubs in County Derry. Brocach (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nach bhfuil fhois agat faoi Contae Laoise? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the rename Gnevin (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is County Derry? Is that a new thing? — Jon C.^ॐ 08:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - In my view these proposals are partisan. The clubs are in County Londonderry. I see no proposals from Brocach to rename all the other county categories (i.e. Category:Gaelic_Athletic_Association_clubs_in_County_Antrim and Category:Gaelic_Athletic_Association_clubs_in_County_Kerry) to follow suit. Failure to do so or even hint at such an idea shows a clear biased intention to side-step IMOS and use Derry for the county rather than Londonderry. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will also make note that Brocach said the following just above: just as the only clubs in Derry GAA are GAA clubs in County Derry. Brocach (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC) - so what's the point in the proposals if the editor says that all Derry GAA clubs are in County Londonderry? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have not made any proposal in respect of other counties is that the name of the GAA county is already in the category; to take your examples, Mabuska, GAA clubs in County Antrim are in the GAA county of Antrim, and GAA clubs in County Kerry are in the GAA county of Kerry. The GAA county has only ever existed as County Derry - there has never been a County Londonderry GAA, and I can't see the point in pretending that there is. Brocach (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming that there is a county Londonderry GAA, and it's tedious that you continue to make the false claim that they are.

However, there are GAA clubs in County Londonderry. That's what these categories capture, and all topics within the counties of Ireland are categorised in the same geographical structure, regardless of any other organisational issues (which can be categorised separately). A similar issue exists for example with the Diocese of Dublin and Glendalough. It includes County Dublin and part of [County Wicklow]], so we categorise it under both counties, and under its own Category:Diocese of Dublin and Glendalough, The same solution can be adopted for GAA boards which cross county lines; we do not need to demolish the standard geograohical categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In every other case, e.g. "GAA clubs in County Wicklow", the name of the GAA county is contained within the title of the category. Derry is at present the only GAA county in Ireland where the the name of the geographical area within which the GAA county operates is completely different from the legal name of the (in this case, obsolete) administrative county. In the Republic, there are a number of local government counties that do not correspond to GAA counties - Fingal, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, North Tipperary etc. - and, quite sensibly, no-one has created "GAA clubs in County Fingal" or whatever. There is no reason to have a category mapping GAA clubs to an administrative area that has no relevance to the actual geographic divisions within which the GAA operates. In every case, county categories for GAA clubs, Gaelic football clubs, hurling clubs, GAA competitions etc. use the name of the GAA county, not the current or former administrative county. Why should Derry alone have a category that imposes an alternative county name? Brocach (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brocach, this is a rather frustrating discussion, because you appear not to be listening to what is said. Please can you stop fora moment and listen to what is being said?

In nearly every topic in Ireland which has enough articles to justify a by-county category breakdown, topics are divided according to the same set of geographical counties: i.e. the 32 traditional counties of Ireland. Whether we are looking at media or people or politics or buildings and structures, we have a "Topic in County Foo" category for every one of the traditional 32 counties.

This is done regardless of any other organisational issues, because using a standardised set of geographical categories helps both readers and editors to geographically locate different topics. The reader to can go to Category:County Laois or Category:County Sligo or any other, county, and therein they will find a range of sub-categories for those counties. This is a system of geographical location, and to be workable it needs to be consistent. That's how the category system works; a consistent structure and consistent naming allows for consistent naming, and without it the category system breaks.

You say that there "is no reason for this"; but please can you try for a moment to step outside of the focus of Derry and the GAA, and look at what geographical categorisation achieves in other counties?

You can go for example, to Category:Sport in County Kildare, and find all sorts of sporting topics there, even though most of the sports are not organised a by-county basis. That's fine, because in addition to the geographical structure, those sports clubs can also be categorised in a way which reflects their sport's organisation. Similarly, in the example of churches, they are categorised geographically even tho that is not how they are organised, but could also be categorised by diocese if someone so wanted.

Do you see the point? Organisational and geographical category structures can run in parallel. There is no need to choose one or the other.

In the case of Derry/Londonderry, the names of city and county are as you know a matter of dispute. To ensure consistency, Wikipedia has adopted a simple policy of using Derry for the city and its categories, and Londonderry for the county. This inevitably means that in some cases we use terminology which would not be supported by the majority of those involved. For example the Unionist Gregory Campbell is in Category:Councillors in Derry and Category:Councillors in Derry, even tho he would almost certainly call it Londonderry. The article Mayor of Derry includes a long list of unionist mayors from before the council's name was changed. Similarly, the Category:Civil parishes of County Londonderry includes plenty of nationalist areas which would refer to to the county as Derry.

Those jarring labels are the inevitable result of a consistent naming strategy, but so far as I can see your logic would have us create a parallel Category:Civil parishes of County Derry for communities which prefer that name. That would be highly disruptive to navigation, and it would lead to endless duplication of categories, because it would also need to be applied the other way, to topics in the city of Derry. For example, Brigade Cricket Club is in Category:Category:Sport in Derry ... but the club itself says that it is in Londonderry.

If we decided to break apart the consistent geographical naming structure, we would create an almighty mess. We'd have to look at each topic, decide which name it appeared to use, and name it accordingly. Looking at the sporting topics alone, that would be a nightmare.

Now, wrt to Derry GAA, there are two ways of looking at this. Either

1. the GAA county of Derry covers the same area as County Londonderry, in which case we use the standard geographical term for the name of the geographical category.
2. the GAA county of Derry is different to the geographical County Londonderry, in which case we can have a parallel set of categories relating to the scope the Derry GAA.

Which do you prefer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be a candidate for the most patronising comeback of all time. I have read (not listened to, I grant) every contribution and have considered every point made. One valid point that you make is that a key issue is whether the current GAA county, County Derry, covers the same territory as the defunct administrative county, County Londonderry. It doesn't, as you would know if you read the relevant articles. In common with most if not all GAA counties in Ireland, County Derry maps closely to the defunct administrative county but takes in teams from, and sends out teams to, the neighbouring and (in this case) also obsolete administrative counties (Tyrone, Donegal, Antrim).

First, wrt your statement that "For example, Brigade Cricket Club is in Category:Category:Sport in Derry ... but the club itself says that it is in Londonderry", this is hardly relevant since the Category:Category:Sport in Derry has nothing to do with the present conversation, as it relate to the city of Derry.

Where I depart from your logic is that I recognise the crashingly obvious fact that the GAA counties and the (former) admin counties are all geographical divisions. There is no reason to assume that a region (County Londonderry) used as a local government district, until 1973 when it was abolished by the British government, is somehow "the" county, while the GAA division that came into existence in 1884 and is still in everyday use (County Derry) is some bizarre "non-geographical" thingummy. There is a much stronger case to be made for the real existence of County Derry than of County Londonderry, which as far as I know has at present no status in law, even as a decorative Lord Lieutenancy. Derry GAA is, by contrast, a legal entity.

Now, to turn to your one other point of interest, the issue is whether GAA county categories need to be created as parallel categories to the current or defunct administrative county categories. The differences between the 32 GAA counties (in Ireland) and the (former) 32 local government counties are so slight, and so variable from year to year, that for most purposes they can be considered as pretty much identical. If a hurling club in one mainly-football county crosses the border to play in a neighbouring league, that doesn't even redraw the X County GAA borders for non-hurling purposes, and that particular club can legitimately claim to be linked to both its home county and the one in which it competes. Certainly, Wikipedia should link it to both counties. In the majority of cases, a category naming the (current or former) administrative county will be so closely aligned with the (current) GAA county that it would be pointless duplication to create separate categories for GAA and non-GAA purposes.

There are, however, exceptions such as the fact that at present one GAA county (Derry) has (and always had) a different name to the former administrative county occupying a more or less identical territory (Londonderry). There have been other such anomalies in the past (e.g. Laois/Queen's County) and there are several cases now of GAA counties not mapping to admin counties (e.g. counties Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, South Dublin and Fingal, all in the one GAA county Dublin), but Derry is the one and only case in which the whole of the GAA county occupies more or less the same geographical space as a pre-1973 administrative county with a different name. No-one has created categories for GAA clubs/competitions etc. that insist on the newer admin county boundaries in the south (e.g. Fingal), and the sports categories in those cases follow the names of the former counties because those are the geographical divisions that the sports bodies actually use regardless of the administrative situation. Derry is the only case, as far as I know, where editors such as you seem to be determined to have GAA clubs mapped to a county name other than the GAA county name. The obvious solution is to have the GAA categories listed according to the name of the only county with which GAA bodies have ever identified - the GAA county - and to have listed under the obsolete administrative county any sports organisations that choose to identify with the 40-years-defunct county administrative boundaries. Brocach (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the standard form is County Londonderry, we do not change usage to please specific political groups. The standard usage through all of wikipedia is Londonderry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Specific political groups"? This is a discussion about a sporting organisation. The standard form of the county name in the Gaelic Athletic Association is County Derry. Brocach (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The standard form throughout wikipedia is Londonderry, and no one has given any good reason to deviate from that form in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply repeating that statement does not make it true. Wikipedia acknowledges County Derry as an alternative to County Londonderry, and in the specific case of the GAA, only Derry is used. Brocach (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per my long reply above, difft nomenclatures are used on either side of the spectrum according to political preference in respect of all sorts of topics. As you well know, there are all sorts of topics which use one set of terminology or the other, but we don't rename geographical categories according to those political preferences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user pushing this agenda has also pushed the same terminology on the Derry GAA article for a good half year without any references, despite having no consensus for it and being reverted several times, and despite the fact they never proposed the same for all the other county articles. It is apparent this is simply political pov pushing and as with many other discussions in the past, the user will ignore editors they disagree with and push on regardless - which i'm sure BHG you are reaslising. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if Mabuska could identify any other GAA county that is listed in categories using county names that are not only different from that of the GAA county, but are utterly rejected by the GAA county. Derry is a special case and Wikipedia, as a neutral encyclopaedia, needs to reflect the actual fact that Derry GAA has never had and has no connection with the obsolete administrative county of Londonderry, rather than imposing that nomenclature on it for reasons that have never been stated by Mabuska and cohorts, but may easily be surmised. Brocach (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As explained repeatedly above, these categories relate to a geographical county, not to a GAA county. Wikipedia's geographical categories are applied consistently. If we start renaming categories according to the political preferences of some of those categorised, we will create a hotchpotch of variations which will impede navigation and create a long run of further disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 28 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Telomere to Category:Telomeres

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, countable nouns are to be plural in category titles. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per C2B: "a rename enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 26 September 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:African newspaper journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete All four journalists in this category are already categorized in the national Namibian or South African categories so this is just creating category clutter in the articles. This might work as a container category for national subcategories but the parent category Category:Newspaper journalists only contains four national subcategories so there's no need to group them by continent. Pichpich (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Our coverage of Africa is very poor, and it is unlikely that it will expand enough in the near future to justify the creation of many more national subcats. In the meantime, the all-Africa category provides a useful place to categorise any further articles which are created. Without it, we risk omitting African journalists from this part of the category tree.
  Note that I have added parent categories, and included the sub-categories. The articles currently in this categ should be diffused to subcats, but the category itself should stay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Our coverage of Africa is better than it used and treating a continent as a bunch of countries we don't really care to distinguish is not going to help improve that coverage. Moreover grouping countries that often have radically different journalism cultures and freedom of press is arbitrary. Abandoning the national subcategories also means that Namibian newspaper journalists stop appearing as a subcategory of, say, Category:Namibian journalists and readers typing "Category:Namibian newspaper journalists" might conclude that we don't have articles about Namibian newspaper journalists. I think this is precisely the reasoning behind the WP:SMALLCAT exception for categories that are part of a well-established scheme. Pichpich (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my previous comment was unclear. I propose that this should be a container ((category)), with the articles diffused to national subcats. The problem is that we don't yet have a full set of national subcats, and are unlikely to do so for some time. So editors trying to the categorise African newspapers journalists do not have a specific category to place the articles in, and not all editors are comfortable with creating new categs. The African category can be a holding category until the articles are diffused to subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I still disagree but I could certainly live with that if it gets support. Pichpich (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm in total agreement with BrownHairedGirl on this point. Please look at the work I've done on reorganizing categories in Africa under Category:African journalists. Until this was accomplished, it was harder to "discover" the smaller categories and for readers to make connections. In fact, I only found this thread when I started looking further into the subcategories. When this conversation started there were just a few countries in the larger "African journalists" category, now there are over 40 with ethnic groups to follow. We should see if better organization from the higher to the lower level can help our coverage. I'm also opposed to this because nobody would seriously suggest the deletion of Category:American journalists by type or Category:American newspaper journalists. Of course, America's containers are full. The same information, however, is important for Africa. Deleting these categories for Africa doesn't encourage more creation and it doesn't help the audience discover how rich journalism actually is in Africa and all its different forms. I am not primarily a category person but more of a content person, but categories are essential for connections. Crtew (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am with Pichpich on this. A category with them name relegates Africa to being a continent with countries we do not seem to care enough about to even both distinguishing them. I am sick and tired of people speaking of "China, Brazil, India and Africa" and so will fight any thing that comes close to that. Nigeria has over 100 million people, and it is high time people stopped conflating it with Mozambique, Kenya and Sudan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  JPL, I agree entirely on where we want to be. But how do we get there? I think you are letting the best be the enemy of the good.

  AFAICS, while we build coverage, the the choice is between a) having an all-Africa category ready for any new articles, for which a country-specific categ can be created; b) having neither an all-Africa nor a country-specific category.

  There are thousands are highly notable journalists are all over Africa, but our coverage of them so abysmal that in most African countries we have no articles on any of them, and hence no category. Your Nigerian example is a good one: it's a disgrace that we appear to have not a single article on a newspaper journalist from a county of 100 million people ... but how exactly will deleting the all-Africa category fix that problem?

  We can't create a "Newspaper journalists" category for each country until we have at least one article to put in it ... so if an editor who creates an article isn't familiar with creating categories, the article won't appear in any "Newspaper journalists" category relating to either Africa or the specific country. If we have all-Africa categories, that provides a basis for creating the country-specific categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the category African newspaper journalists ! I agree with BrownHairedGirl that our coverage in Africa is very low, and it is only fair that we as well have a category for our journalists, the same way there are categories for journos from other continents say for example Asia, Europe and others. I am the creator of the category in question, while it happens that only Namibian journalists are appearing in the category (at the moment ), my intentions were to pull in other articles in the future,reorganizing them. It should also be known that most of the articles are categorized by continent, country, regions etc...so this won't be a duplication at all, it's just normal that way . (talk) Elianamwiha 00:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how is this any different than the editors cat that we deleted? There is nothing that prevents us from making specific categories for Namibians etc, especially since nationality cats almost always are exempted from smallcat rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This is part of an established category tree Category:African society and Category:African journalism and as with all categories exists to help readers navigate to included articles Hmains (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. By country is a established scheme. By continent is not. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:African newspaper editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete All four journalists in this category are already categorized in the national Namibian or South African categories so this is just creating category clutter in the articles. This might work as a container category for national subcategories but Category:Newspaper editors by nationality is still of very manageable size and there's no need to isolate the African categories. Pichpich (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not a by nationality category, and to put it there is to insult all the people from Mali to Kenya to Angola and imply they are in countries that for some reason lack individual recognition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Government and politics images to Category:Wikipedia Government and politics images

The nomination also includes the subcategories:

• Category:Abortion images > Category:Wikipedia abortion images
• Category:Conservatism images > Category:Wikipedia conservatism images
• Category:Currency images > Category:Wikipedia currency images
• Category:Flag images > Category:Wikipedia flag images
• Category:Labour movement images > Category:Wikipedia labour movement images
• Category:Military images > Category:Wikipedia military images
• Category:Images of passports > Category:Wikipedia images of passports

Nominator's rationale: It's not clear at first sight that the listed categories contain images included in Wikipedia and not articles discussing the copyright possibilities of reproduction of currencies or the contentiousness of depictions of abortion or sth similar. I think it's standard to prepend 'Wikipedia' to such categories. Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered there are other such categories in Category:Wikipedia images - therefore it would be best to rename them all in this manner. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I did some searching, and I'm dubious that these are going to be confused with categories holding article pages. If such confusion is proven then I would support renaming to Category:Wikipedia images of X. The word Wikipedia (since it would be used as an adjective) needs to modify "images", not "X". - jc37 19:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok for me. I was thinking for example about the article Reproduction of Slovenian currency. I thought about putting it into 'Currency images', but realised then that it is intended for something else, so I don't know what should be done. Perhaps a better way would be to merge the article to 'Slovenian currency', but there's no such article. Therefore, I proposed the renaming of the category. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless we rename the entire tree of Category:Wikipedia images by subject. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the entire renaming would make sense. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose an entire renaming might make sense, but it should not be done in a haphazard way. If someone wants to do an all category renaming they should find a way to propose that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Japanese miIlitary physicians to Category:Japanese military physicians

Nominator's rationale: The name of the category is obviously misspelled. Björn Knutson (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per C2A: "typographic and spelling fixes". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment: I have started a discussion on WP:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current nominations. Björn Knutson (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You didn't need to do that. We don't need to have the same discussion in two places, and WP:CFD/S isn't really a place for discussion at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 27 September 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: rename per nominator, but not speedily. Speedy criterion C2D is explicit that it applies only if the related article's current name "is unambiguous, and uncontroversial—either due to longstanding stability at at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion which had explicit consensus to rename". ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:WTA Challenger Tour to Category:WTA Challenger Series

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is WTA Challenger Series. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 05:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. WTA Challenger Series is the correct name.[1] Rename is supported by the category creator [2] who invented the current name 19 May where it was uncertain what WTA would call their new tournament series. Many Wikipedia mirrors have copied "WTA Challenger Tour" since then but no reliable sources use the name. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per C2D and G7. (Note that the original speedy nom was objected to on the grounds the article had just been renamed; however there is long-standing precedent based on past uncontested moves that moving an article name uncontroversially does not preclude immediate C2Ding). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 26 September 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) players to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players

Nominator's rationale: OK, now this one I'm trying to get straightened out because I already have Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players nominated to be merged and what I'm trying to do with the Vancouver MLS category is to merge it to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players pending the nominations below. – Michael (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per nom. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: merge all except Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players. Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players accounts for the current team, which is very different than the others.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Vancouver Whitecaps players to Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players
• Propose merging Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players to Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players
• Propose merging Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (USL A-League) players to Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players
• Propose merging Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (USL First Division) players to Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players
• Propose merging Category:Vancouver 86ers (A-League) players to Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players
• Propose merging Category:Vancouver 86ers (APSL) players to Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players
• Propose merging Category:Vancouver 86ers (CSL) players to Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players
• Propose merging Category:Vancouver 86ers (USISL A-League) players to Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players
• Propose merging Category:Vancouver 86ers players to Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players

Nominator's rationale: This is all the same stuff from the Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps from 1986 to 2010 and I think should all be merged to the category that I've nominated for renaming, which you can see below. – Michael (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The team name was 86ers for legal reasons but when the team was able to use the former name again, they claimed all previous history. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you got any suggestions that can sort all of this out, or do I have to start all over? I've been trying to straighten everything out for a couple of hours because there were too many 86ers/Whitecap categories. – Michael (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After looking at the articles listed in Vancouver Whitecaps, I support the principle of merging this array of categories, and I see that the nom has chosen those names to try to include all permutations of the last two incarnations. However the result hasn't quite worked; it's just too verbose, and slashes are best avoided if possible.
  Why not just name the merge target as Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–present) players?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players. OK, I see that the nom below fixes the convoluted naming which I criticised in my comment, but the merge target listed here made me think that the convoluted name was to be the permanent one. This would have been clearer if listed as one single nomination rather than as two. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge all per BHG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players

Nominator's rationale: per Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010). – Michael (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to reduce verbosity. The various permutations of name listed in the nom above should become ((category redirect))s to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild Support - The MLS team claims continuity from 1974 and a few vocal Seattle Sounders fans, whose team has reused the same name but does not claim history to the original NASL club, are saying that these are not the same teams. They have forced different articles and subsequently different cats as well. I would argue that they should all be merged into one category: Vancouver Whitecaps players. Short of that, this makes the most sense based on the logic put forward by the Sounders editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bronze medalists at the 2007 Winter Universiade to Category:Medalists at the 2007 Winter Universiade
• Propose merging Category:Silver medalists at the 2007 Winter Universiade to Category:Medalists at the 2007 Winter Universiade
• Propose merging Category:Gold medalists at the 2007 Winter Universiade to Category:Medalists at the 2007 Winter Universiade

Nominator's rationale: As far as I know, we have no categories breaking medalists by colour at a particular edition of a competition, and it is a tree that well, would create TONS of category clutter if carried forth. Courcelles 02:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as current scheme is creating category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television series set in Oakland, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: categorization with only one article, unlikely to have many more. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose retaining: The city is big enough that there might be more shows. It was created to further divide 'shows in CA' Fuddle (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Television series set in California. No need to break out except with truly iconic cities (such as San Fran and LA). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you define iconic? Nielsen says SF, Oak and San Jose are one market. How about -Television series set in the Bay Area (California)- ? Fuddle (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partially WP:COMMONSENSE. People worldwide know San Francisco, for instance, but they don't necessarily know the way to San Jose. But "Set in the Bay Area" could work well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is about setting of a show. Oakland is a very, very different city than San Francisco, so to treat setting a TV production in one as the same as setting a TV production in the other is to ignore what setting involves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category now has three articles and will likely continue to grow. --Bob247 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: keep but remove all biographical articles.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:History of women in Kentucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No clear criterion for inclusion. Seems to include nearly every woman from Kentucky, including people such as Patty Loveless who, while irrefutably notable, have little to do with the state's history. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - How is this different than the other subcats of Category:History of women in the United States by state? - jc37 01:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Unlike the others, it's being very heavily misused. The others seem to have proper focus and focus on the actual history of women, while this is being used as a catchall for any woman ever from Kentucky. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Then the solution would seem to be: Keep but prune - in particular, all articles on individual persons. To (hopefully) restore it to the inclusion criteria. - jc37 01:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If pruned, it would have at best one article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And would fit under the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I find this statement (above) to be unfair - and I request that, in the interest of collegiality and in an effort to use the data that is available on the types of articles in this category, that your statement be retracted. Respectfully, Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but prune/re-arrange, along the lines of Category:History of women in Louisiana. Certainly the articles on individual persons should all be removed. Oculi (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I am really confused by these statements. This category was first developed by a collaboration between my history students and the librarians here at the University of Kentucky (we were studying the time period 1920-1970, surely you would agree that their work is historical in nature). I feel strongly that the category should not be deleted simply due to an overly exuberant use by others. I see there are two issues under discussion here -- please correct me if I am misunderstanding: (1) the nominator for deleting this category indicates that there is "no clear criterion for inclusion." In my ignorance about the process for developing a new category, I must have neglected to do something to make the criterion more clear, a simple oversight that can be rectified. Please let me know how I can help people understand how to use the category more effectively. (2) In the comments about "pruning" - are you claiming that a biographical entry of a living person is not historical in nature? What are the criterion by which you would become more comfortable regarding the historiocity of an entry? We have agreed in the Women's History WikiProject that these kinds of delimiter can be very subjectively applied given that the field of women's history (similar to men's history) relies so heavily on contemporary issues in order to understand the past. Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but prune/re-arrange per Occuli. This category should be restricted to articles about the history of women in Kentucky, and not populated with individual women. Any woman from Kentucky on whom we have have a biography is included because they are notable, and they form part of the history of the state. So if this is a category of women, it will be swamped. Unless we restrict this to a category about women, it will become useless for the historical purposes for which the historians concerned created it.
  It sounds like these historians have done great work in documenting this topic for Wikipedia, and their creation of a list of the women who have been important in the state's history is a valuable step for which they should be commended. However, for all the reasons above, a category is the wrong tool for that job. A list-style article would solve all the problems with the category, while preserving the scholarly work which has been done here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I correct that this example of a properly "pruned" category associated with the history of women points users to articles only about inanimate things (a house and a college)? How is this better than pointing to biographies of women (which include relationships to those things and other people)? To be blunt, women's history (especially in the South) has been far too long a series of nameless, ahistorical narratives. We wanted to help our youth who are accustomed to using Wikipedia to see that real, recognizable women were important enough to be acknowledged as important to our state's history. We felt strongly that biographical approaches, not only to describing the historical impact of individuals but also to women's organized groups, were an important addition to the types of articles available that relate to women's history. I'd be happy to make a list-style article in addition to clarifying what the category should mean, if the consensus is that this is necessary. Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Randloph, I fear that I didn't explain myself very well. First thing is, I really strongly applaud what you and your students are doing, and I entirely agree that nameless narratives are insufficient to provide a full history. What we are discussing here is simply how to organise that valuable material which your work has created.
  Unless this category is restricted to historical articles rather than biographies, then the actual historical material will be lost in the many other biographies of women from Kentucky who had no role in the state's history, such as women who left the state before their careers took off. I agree that the Louisiana category is a poor example, but articles such as the Kentucky Equal Rights Association are an excellent fit here, and link to many individual biographies.
  You may also find more that there is scope for specific categories of individual women from Kentucky, which could avoid becoming a catch-all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't believe the fact that a category being over-applied seriously forms the rationale for attempting to delete it. That's just silly. Those familiar with the topic should work to develop inclusion criteria and apply them to the articles already there, removing those that don't fit. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but prune/re-arrange as pointed out by those applying WP:COMMONSENSE above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the editor who "over-applied" the category to a large number of articles, please allow me the space to fully explain why it happened and why I feel strongly that the category should not be removed. The "why" is actually rather simple. Back in February, many of you may remember that in the United States we use the month to celebrate women's history. The Wikipedia Women's History Group (forgive me if I do not have that name correct), placed a challenge of sorts on the WikiProject Kentucky talk page to create new articles and/or uncover more about the history of women in the Commonwealth. When I first checked the category page, I can honestly say that it numbered perhaps 15-20 articles. I used a variety of sources--both print and electronic--to find articles about Kentucky women who contributed to our Commonwealth's history even in the slightest way. Mind you, I did this with no guidance or criteria other than my own. Namely, having been born in, lived in, worked in, written about, or educated in Kentucky--all for a significant number of years (2+ as I recall)--were the criteria I used. No one complained. No one challenged the application of the category to so many articles. And in the end, I believe it finally included over 70 articles. Now, however, a few wish to prune it or delete the category altogether: opinions that I respectfully disagree with. Randolph.hollingsworth makes the strongest case for just leaving the category alone and whomever has a problem with it, please go find something else to be picky about. (I'm paraphrasing you Randolph, and please forgive me for a tad of literary license.) Indulge me a little further with this scenario. An elementary school-age student is tasked with writing a brief report about a women's history topic. Student X discovers the category page and *BINGO* a wealth of articles to explore. Student X may even be inspired to discover more about the chosen subject (many of the articles are stubs). And with very little effort, Wikipedia has served a very important role as a discovery tool! What a wonderful concept! WP:COMMONSENSE in this case be damned, I say. Wikipedia is a modern marvel. It inspires, leads to collaborative projects between people of diverse backgrounds, education, and cultural identity. If anything comes of this, I hope that we have even more refined categories created, such as History of African American women in Kentucky, History of Appalachian women in Kentucky, History of women politicians in Kentucky, ad infinitum. My cohort and friend Acdixon knows that I do not fall on every sword that comes along in the WikiProject Kentucky. He also knows that when I feel strongly about a topic, such as this one, I ain't gonna roll over and play possum. It's pedantic Wikipedia discussions such as this one that really make me want to pull out what remains of my hair. Now, back to my bourbon. Spacini (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the category (it's clearly valid when seen in the context of its parent and sibling categories), prune out the entries for topics that are related to women and Kentucky but lack historical significance, and work out a categorization scheme for women's-history-relevant biographical-articles-by-geography that won't run afoul of limitations outlined in Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Individual women such as Katherine Pettit, Alice Spencer Geddes Lloyd, Addie Graham, and Rebecca Caudill have significance to the history of women in Kentucky (and larger social movements), but do not fit into the existing accepted geography-delimited categories for women (which categories are largely limited to women politicians, women murderers, and beauty pageant winners). --Orlady (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a wonderful discussion and I look forward to showing to my students this coming semester. Since I am supposed to be writing for the University Press of KY a book on the history of women in Kentucky, I fully appreciate the dilemma here. It very much reflects my own as I try to develop a history worthy of publication in the 21st century. We know that women's history is still new as a discipline and so we're still (as producers and consumers of historical texts) grappling with "significance" - so this is a terrific point you've made, Orlady. I'm learning as I go (and I learn so much from my students!). I am always curious about how someone constructs significance in a particularly controversial and embattled field of knowledge. This is, I agree, the crux of the issue at hand.Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, to use settlement school women as an example, it seems to me that Katherine Pettit and Alice Spencer Geddes Lloyd (along with others such as June Buchanan) are most logically treated as "women in the settlement school movement in Kentucky" or "women in the history of education in Kentucky". A topical focus like the settlement school movement gives clearer focus to their categorization than geography does by itself. I imagine that your book will provide that kind of topical focus. For Wikipedia (at its present stage of development), however, "women in the settlement school movement in Kentucky" is much too fine-grained to serve as the scope of a category. --Orlady (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please also see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History. Eliza Carpenter once a slave in Madison County, KY is one of those "Notable Kentucky African Americans" who was partly de-catagorized as mentioned above. Question - how can an article be marked temporarily as an article of significance to a specific topic? Is there hidden catagories or watch or tag functions, so to speak, that are used by Admins or others? If so, this would be a benefit to many educators and researchers. Curious. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now in several additional categories that should help identify its topic. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OrLady! Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not convinced that any of the articles here are worth keeping. Somehow I do not see how an article about a reality television show in 2009 fits a logical definition for this category, nor an article about the NAACP in the state, nor an article that is a timeline of the state. Even if we move beyond the agreed to remove biographical articles, the category has been so throughly misapplied, that deletion seems the only viable solution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment after looking over the various by state categories I have to say I am not convinced that any of them have enough articles to be justified. I would urge upmerging all the by state categories into Category:History of women in the United States until there are more articles that truly fit the cretiria for such categories. The one possible exception might be the Massachusetts cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it seems to me that some of the people above are suggesting we should put some people in this cat. I have to say "no, no, no" to that. No other "history of women in x state" cats have any individual articles. By the logic above Laura Ingels Wilder should be put in Category:History of women in South Dakota and Emiline Wells should be put in Category:History of women in Utah. However there is no easy way to decide on those, and exclude more recent women. It seems that what people are trying to do here might be much better done with a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment my attempts to purge the category of biographies have been over-ruled on the alleged grounds I was "leaving pop culture heroines" or some rubbish like that. In fact, I was just removing some of the articles, and had just not felt up to removing all the articles. I guess I maybe should go back and systematically remove all the bio articles, but I think it would be better to delete the category and start over.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I reverted your edits after you removed from the category some of the individual women who had been named in this discussion. These were authors and educators who were/are important figures in significant social movements that were largely led by women. In removing these historically significant individuals from the category, while leaving articles about reality TV personalities, "Miss Teen Kentucky 2012", Roller Derby, etc., you contributed to the impression that the category was nothing but trivia. After I reverted your edits, I spent some time recategorizing some of the articles in the category, moving them into categories such as Category:Women's sports in Kentucky and other subcategories of Category:Women in Kentucky, which I also created. Now you have systematically removed all of the remaining articles about individual women from the category, which is going to make it that much harder to figure out how to recategorize those articles appropriately. --Orlady (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A study of the above shows that the most of those who are infavor of keeping also agree that all biographical articles should be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if people are writers or educators, they should be put in categories for those things, not amorphous "history" cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a lot easier to work at recategorizing the biographical articles in this category when they were still in the category. The problem was (and still is) that there were no other state-level categories for "those things" -- in general, there weren't even other categories available to use as a pattern. The only women-by-state biographical categories I found were for politicians and beauty contest winners. I recently started Category:American women writers by state, but it's still a vestigial category structure. --Orlady (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, articles like Katherine Pettit (possibly the most famous of the "fotched-on women" who had a major role in the history of rural Kentucky) are no longer in any category that is any way related to the state of Kentucky. Removing that article from all Kentucky-related categories because they weren't the right kinds of Kentucky-related categories did not promote progress. --Orlady (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Orlady for all the new categories! I think I understand how to apply them to my students' work. I confess I am still confused as to why John Pack Lambert feels so strongly about wiping out the biographical linkages... And has the time and energy to undo what was done by many others who are working to get more -not fewer - connections in the hands of our youth. These kinds of connections are what makes history come alive for youth today. Pretending that women's history is only about some old buildings or some few clubs means to me that it remains marginalized and not seen as valuable as men's history. Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & reorganize in a safe and sane logical manner as mentioned above - Why? - by looking at and pondering each of the views above. I have concluded and there is much more benefit by continuing this type of category than deleting it. It looks like it may need to be refined or changed, but not deleted.
  I am also disturbed how some editors on Wikipedia try to make decisions for the group by preempting discussions by acting first. To be honest I have faced this bully tactic on Wikipedia before and that is one of the things that drove me away for a time. And I know of a dozen or more others former editors that refuse to use, accept or endorse Wikipedia. This includes educators. We all need to learn and communicate better. That includes me.
  We need simpler rules as guidelines and not iron fisted rules. We need to encourage, educate and inspire the generations that follow us. Otherwise Wikipedia will fail, become corrupt and worthless.
  Well, That my two bits worth. It used to be two cents worth, but what can you say about inflation? Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: no consensus. Amongst the small number of editors participating in this discussion, there was majority support for the proposed renaming. However, there are several flaws in this discussion which make it fall short of a consensus for the proposed change:

1. The nomination is stated to include all the sub-categories, but those sub-categories are neither listed nor tagged.
2. The discussion did not acknowledge that this is one of several trees under Category:Television programming, many of which use "programmes", so if this renaming had proceeded it would have created a further anomaly with those categories. No arguments were advanced in this discussion for treating these categories differently to those of other TV shows/programmes, so it is perverse to start a wider renaming with one branch of the tree

A wide-ranging change like this causes instability and procedural disputes unless it is the result of a discussion which has been reasonably well-advertised. In this case, the failure to tag the sub-categories means that this proposal was inadequately notified, so the majority preference here could be easily challenged as inadequate consensus for such a sweeping change.

So I am closing this discussion as "no consensus", without prejudice to a further nomination which addresses the procedural problems here. There is no requirement to notify affected WikiProjects, but if editors want to pursue the idea of this change, a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television may help to broaden participation in any future discussion. It may also be helpful to have a preliminary discussion at a centralised location before any further nomination, to clarify the issues involved in such a wide-ranging change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Rename Category:Television programs by source and all its subcats to ...shows... (e.g. Category:Television shows by source)

This is to eliminate the ENGVAR issue of programme/program, and also avoids the ENGVAR usage of the word "series".

The full list is here (program) and here (programme) and here (series).

(I would welcome help with the tagging : ) - jc37 01:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all - as nom. - jc37 01:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the word show is very informal and will lead to inconsistency with radio program/me/series which are not shown. Tim! (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, actually, the term "show" predates television, radio, and even film. And there are lots of sources which describe radio presentations as "radio shows", including such shows themselves.

  Here's a quote from [3]:

  • "Show (n.) - c.1300, "act of exhibiting to view," from show (v.). Sense of "appearance put on with intention to deceive" is recorded from 1520s. Meaning "display, spectacle" is first recorded 1560s; that of "ostentatious display" is from 1713 (showy is from 1712). Sense of "entertainment program on radio or TV" is first recorded 1932. Meaning "third place in a horse race" is from 1925, Amer.Eng. Show of hands is attested from 1789; Phrase for show "for appearance's sake" is from c.1700. Show business is attested from 1850; shortened form show biz first attested 1945. Expression the show must go on is first attested 1941. Show-stopper is from 1926; show trial first recorded 1937."

  The OED also has a lengthy section concerning "show" here. (You'll need to scroll half way down, or search for the phrase "In radio and television".) - jc37 19:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all. "Shows" is the only word with no regional spelling variations and no claim to frequency. It just says "This was on television somewhere."--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to show. It avoids a neverending battle. Plus, I would say it is the term people more often actually use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was: merge (target has already been renamed). – Fayenatic London 14:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging renaming Category:Adaptations by Bertolt Brecht to Category:Plays by Bertolt Brecht

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure why we would group these together. I think the intent was to say "These plays are different because Brecht didn't think of their plots himself," but I'm not aware of anywhere else where we do that.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator to Category:Plays by Bertold Brecht per the nominator's rationale, but using the spelling of the existing category. Adapting an existing legend or work is quite common in play-writing, and if we were to create "adaptations" categories for each author in this way, we'd have a well-populated Category:Adaptations by William Shakespeare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both Category:Adaptations by Bertolt Brecht and Category:Plays by Bertold Brecht to Category:Plays by Bertolt Brecht per nom and Bertolt Brecht (and Category:Works by Bertolt Brecht). Oculi (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't even notice the spelling error in the "Plays" category. I'll get that speedily renamed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, the mis-spelling is in the plays category. I have amended my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as this is a meaningless distinction, at least in the case of Aeschylus, Brecht, Euripides, Shakespeare and Sophocles. — Robert Greer (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per... well it looks like we all agree : ) - jc37 02:10, 30 October 2012 (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.