< January 16	January 18 >

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: Proposal for rename was defeated per the consensus achieved at WT:GAA and subsequently confirmed at WT:IMOS. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose re-naming the following hurling categories that cross-sect by GAA county

Category: Carlow hurlers to Category:Carlow GAA hurlers

Category: Clare hurlers to Category:Clare GAA hurlers

Category: Cork hurlers to Category:Cork GAA hurlers

Category: Dublin hurlers to Category:Dublin GAA hurlers

Category: Galway hurlers to Category:Galway GAA hurlers

Category: Kerry hurlers to Category:Kerry GAA hurlers

Category: Kildare hurlers to Category:Kildare GAA hurlers

Category: Kilkenny hurlers to Category:Kilkenny GAA hurlers

Category: Laois hurlers to Category:Laois GAA hurlers

Category: Leitrim hurlers to Category:Leitrim GAA hurlers

Category: Limerick hurlers to Category:Limerick GAA hurlers

Category: Longford hurlers to Category:Longford GAA hurlers

Category: Mayo hurlers to Category:Mayo GAA hurlers

Category: Meath hurlers to Category:Meath GAA hurlers

Category: Offaly hurlers to Category:Offaly GAA hurlers

Category: Roscommon hurlers to Category:Roscommon GAA hurlers

Category: Sligo hurlers to Category:Sligo GAA hurlers

Category: Waterford hurlers to Category:Waterford GAA hurlers

Category: Westmeath hurlers to Category:Westmeath GAA hurlers

Category: Wexford hurlers to Category:Wexford GAA hurlers

Category: Wicklow hurlers to Category:Wicklow GAA hurlers

Category:Hurlers by county in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Hurlers by GAA county in the Republic of Ireland

• Nominator's rationale per the precedent of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers held at here. The "counties" are governing bodies, not administrative counties and so need to be disambiguated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per arguments at Tipperary discussion linked. --Qetuth (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the precedent and discussion around "Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers" The Banner talk 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. (1) These are very long-established categories; (2) all hurlers are GAA hurlers, as the GAA is the only sporting organisation that runs hurling; (3) the so-called "precedent" of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers is a controversial change made by the proposer here, unilaterally, without taking it to the talk page here; (4) hurling in Ireland is organised wholly along the 32 traditional counties, not using new administrative boundaries such as North Tipperary, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown etc., so that the issue of "confusion" between GAA counties and administrative counties is non-existent; (5) inter-county hurlers play for teams named "Tipperary", "Dublin", "Derry" etc., not "Tipperary GAA", Dublin GAA", "Derry GAA"; (6) just as Tipperary is now an anomalous category, this proposal would create inconsistency by renaming only 22 counties while leaving others in the long-established format; (7) this user, who has a very long record of controversial moves of GAA articles and refusals to discuss, has announced [[1]] that this is the just start of a "campaign" to move many other GAA categories. Brocach (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply (1) is not an argument. (3) Virtually no category name changes are EVER discussed at category talk pages - few editors watch them compared to articles and any decision would need to be brought here anyway. CfD and Project talk pages are long established as the normal places for such discussions. And a 2 week discussion involving about half a dozen editors and closed by an uninvolved observer is NOT a 'unilateral' change by LL. (2/4/5) are much the same point, which was discussed repeatedly at the previous discussion as misrepresenting the reason for the proposal, and I thought this had been made clear to you, but apparently not. There is ambiguity in current names between 'Hurlers from foo area' and 'Hurlers who play for foo'. This rename resolves it, feel free to suggest a better one. (6/7) are arguments which nicely counter each other. To be clear, you are both unhappy that LL did only part of the job, but also that he intends to finish? Rereading the Tipperary discussion, I am surprised at the characterisation of its closure given here - the only voices against besides Brocach's argument were an IP who disagreed with a wording which wasn't used, and JPL argument for consistency, which everyone in the discussion agreed on. --Qetuth (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Agree with Brocach. Feel he has outlined the numerous grounds to oppose this move on. Finnegas (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Brocach's well reasoned arguments. It makes no sense the mentioned category was moved. There was clearly no consensus to move it. The discussion was fairly evenly split, not clearly in favor of the change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed the discussion you refer to. I think you need to re-read it. The discussion was not "fairly evenly split". As Qetuth says above, "the only voices against besides Brocach's argument were an IP who disagreed with a wording which wasn't used, and JPL argument for consistency, which everyone in the discussion agreed on." In any case, I'm sure you're familiar with WP:NOTAVOTE. Despite the strong opposition of one editor, I saw a consensus there from the editors which was strengthened by the standard general principles of category naming that were mentioned in that discussion; ie, all the parent categories are "FOO GAA", so normal category naming conventions for sportspeople by team would make the subcategories for players "FOO GA hurlers". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reference to the "parent category" is a misunderstanding. "Dublin hurlers" play for a team called "Dublin". The team is not called Dublin GAA. The body that runs the team is the "Dublin County Board of the Gaelic Athletic Association", which for convenience is often called "Dublin GAA", although "Dublin GAA has other meanings, such as the entire network of clubs in that county. Brocach (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was the team name. I said it was the name of the parent category. You have apparently overinterpreted my intended meaning, and I am not confused on that point, as suggested. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Carlow hurlers are people who hurl for Carlow. It is never used in any other sense. There is no danger of confusion and therefore no need for disambiguation. Qetuth's arguments are technically correct, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so whatever is done for "Foo" does not automatically need to be done for GAA counties. I missed the Tipperary discussion, but I would vote for a reversal if it was proposed. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Changed per Scolaire Gnevin (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Support With categories we don't have an intro to explain the scope of the category until Articles. These Categories have 2 meaning at the moment . Someone from Galway administrative county and some one who has Hurled for the county . In most cases these are one in and same but not always. I'd asked those opposed to these moves to take a fresh look. The articles doesn't need to have the same naming convention as the categories Gnevin (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Except that they don't have two meanings in the real world. If someone who was was born in/lives in County Roscommon plays hurling for Galway, he is referred to as a Galway hurler, never as a Roscommon hurler. Even if he changes allegiance from Roscommon to Galway he will only ever be referred to as a former Roscommon hurler. Scolaire (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about Ryan O'Dwyer is he a former Tipp Hurler , now Dublin Hurler ? Or both? . If look at Dublin Hurlers and I'm no expert is it saying he's from Dublin or plays for Dublin ? I agree what within Ireland calling someone a Dublin Hurler means they hurler for Dublin but isn't necessarly clear for people outside Ireland hense why all these categories have the message This category is for sportspeople who have played hurling for x GAA. but users shouldn't have to click into the category to know this Gnevin (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that difficult: if someone has played for two counties, he goes into both categories. Brocach (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And would the answer be any different if the two cats were renamed? No. Scolaire (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose See no need to move. It seems like a small bugbear that the nominator has about counties, whether they're historic or administrative or new or GAA or whatever. In this case, the current categories are clear and unambiguous. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per rationale of Scolaire. All county hurlers are GAA hurlers - what other kind of county hurler is there? Hohenloh ⁺ 11:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, the category "Derry hurler" should be reinstated and that name is rather explosive... The Banner talk 13:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the category "Derry hurlers" should be reinstated. It is hardly "explosive": what would be is "Londonderry hurlers", given that the name of the county team is "Derry". Brocach (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? Category:Derry hurlers has existed since August 2007, and AFAICS it has never been deleted or nominated for deletion or renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, Laurel Lodged has made it clear elsewhere that he intends to follow up with moving all Ulster hurlers, camogie players etc to similar "+GAA" categories. All completely unnecessary. Brocach (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The more this is discussed the more clear it becomes to me that the previous rename was unwise. The parent teams are referred to this as "Dublin" excetera, so we should use those names in the category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly clear now which way this is going. It follows, of course, that the one anomalous category -"Tipperary GAA hurlers" - should revert to "Tipperary hurlers". Brocach (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Scolaire. In practice, there is no ambiguity here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7-4 against any more of Laurel Lodged's renamings. I suggest we close this discussion and move on, with the one anomaly (created of course by Laurel Lodged), Tipperary, reverting to the standard "Tipperary hurlers" format. Brocach (talk)

I suggest you read (or re-read) WP:Vote. Snappy (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have I missed something in it, Snappy? Do you think the issue hasn't been discussed? Brocach (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out per WP:DGFA, that for a closing admin - "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)."

Of course. But there's enough reasoning above to justify closing now, and I'd be keen to get the Tipperary anomaly fixed. Brocach (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this is unnecessary disambiguation. The only hurlers are GAA ones. Snappy (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The most important argument 'for' is the potential ambiguity with origin vs team. The most important argument 'against' is that of common usage. I think most other arguments have boiled down to variations of these or matters of process and consistency. I did admit that common usage is a factor to consider at Tipperary, but not an overwhelming one as references within a region or context naturally require less disambiguation than those for a wider audience (if it helps illustrate my point there, I play for a sporting team called "University" in all competition documentation, draws etc, and other players would commonly refer to me as a 'Uni player' - what would my category be called on en.wp were I or my local comp notable?). However, it is clear there is much more opposition to this move than was evident at Tipperary, so I leave weighing these issues to those more familiar with the topic. --Qetuth (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above analysis is correct. For those in Uni, there is no need to disambiguate Uni. For those not in Uni, there is a need. There are more users of Wiki who are not in Uni than who are in Uni. We therefore disambiguate Uni in Wiki. The implication for this nomination is obvious but I'll spell it out nevertheless. For those in Cork GAA, there is no need to disambiguate Cork. For those not in Cork GAA, there is a need. There are more users of Wiki who are not in Cork than who are in Cork. We therefore disambiguate Cork in Wiki. Let us not lose courage in the face of opposition from those who will never be convined by arguments that are incongruent with their worldview. The logic is there and the conclusion inevitable. To shy away from the consequences of your own logic would be a shame indeed. Fiat justitia ruat caelum. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By extension then we would have to change Category:Cork Gaelic footballers to Category:Cork GAA Gaelic footballers. Snappy (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course the "logic" of Laurel Lodged's multiple changes, and he has already announced plans to do that with camogie players. No users of Wikipedia, Laurel Lodged included, need to add "GAA" between the name of a county and the word "hurlers" to know that a category deals with the hurlers of that county. Anyone who doesn't know what hurling is probably doesn't know what the GAA is, and probably isn't looking at any of these categories. Brocach (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is a similar nomination here, I'm not sure of the procedure, but should it be merged with this one? Snappy (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI You may wish to consider the proposal for a topic ban on Laurel Lodged here. Brocach (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And off course the proposal for a topic ban against mr. Brocach in the same discussion. The Banner talk 23:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the specific proposals here have had a very clear response, I would now ask everyone (on both sides) to take the issues of GAA category/article naming conventions here. Brocach (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Gaelic games#Article_and_category_naming_conventions has now been closed. The relevant section is proposal 3, which was upheld (see permalink). It reads: Titles of categories of people who have played on inter-county GAA teams should not have "GAA" inserted after the county name, i.e. "X hurlers", not "X GAA hurlers"; "X Gaelic footballers", not "X GAA Gaelic footballers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closure requested. I have listed this discussion at WP:AN/RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 9 February 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 03:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Keihin Electric Express Railway to Category:Keikyu
• Propose renaming Category:Lines of Keihin Electric Express Railway to Category:Lines of Keikyu
• Propose renaming Category:Stations of Keihin Electric Express Railway to Category:Stations of Keikyu

Nominator's rationale: As per the main article (Keikyu), the company's English name was changed from Keihin Electric Express Railway to Keikyu in 2010. --DAJF (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename we generally have categories under the current name of a thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:46, 17 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 03:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Vulkaneifel geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small stub category. Delete category, upmerge template to Category:Rhineland-Palatinate geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom -Qetuth (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2013 (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 category, upmerge template. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Rhein-Hunsrück geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small stub category. Delete category, upmerge template to Category:Rhineland-Palatinate geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom, or to Category:Koblenz region geography stubs if it is kept below. --Qetuth (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2013 (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 category, upmerge template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Cochem-Zell geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small stub category. Delete category, upmerge template to Category:Rhineland-Palatinate geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom, or to Category:Koblenz region geography stubs if it is kept below. --Qetuth (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2013 (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 category, upmerge template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Birkenfeld district geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small stub category. Delete categroy, upmerge template to Category:Rhineland-Palatinate geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom, or to Category:Koblenz region geography stubs if it is kept below. --Qetuth (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2013 (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 category, upmerge template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Kusel district geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small stub category. Delete category, upmerge template to Category:Rhineland-Palatinate geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom, or to Category:Rheinhessen-Pfalz geography stubs if it is kept below. --Qetuth (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2013 (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 category, upmerge template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Rheinhessen-Pfalz geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Rheinhessen-Pfalz is no longer a valid administrative region. Removing this category will not overly flood the parent category. Delete this category and upmerge all subcategories and templates to Category:Rhineland-Palatinate geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. A ltitle curious why we made a geo category in 2007 for something that was disestablished in 2000. --Qetuth (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2013 (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 category, upmerge subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Koblenz region geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Koblenz is no longer a valid administrative region. Removing this category will not flood the parent category. Delete this category and upmerge all subcategories and templates to Category:Rhineland-Palatinate geography stubs. Keep ((Koblenz-geo-stub)) as a valid template for the urban district. Dawynn (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. A ltitle curious why we made a geo category in 2007 for something that was disestablished in 2000. --Qetuth (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2013 (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} 12:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Privatisation to Category:Privatization

Nominator's rationale: Per main article (Privatization), as well as all its child categories, and nearly all grandchild categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Rename the main article. My understanding is that the term arose when the British government needed to find a vast sum of money to modernise British Telecom and found it by floating this nationalised enterprise on the stock market. Accordingly, the original use (and therefore spelling) of the term was in British English. The article instances a number of earlier examples, including the denationalisation of the British steel industry in 1950s. Since USA has never had any significant number of nationalised industries, the US-usage must be the deriviative one. Another case of US linguistic imperialism. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the article had its current name continuously since 2006, while the category dates to 2008. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I wish I had an OED subscription. I don't, but according to Merriam-Webster the first use was in '48, long before the BT privatisation. But it sure as heck sounds like a British term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OED lists the first use of the term as "privatisation" in 1942. It has one from 1944 that is "privatization", so it's probably been hybridly spelled since the beginning. The very earliest form listed seems to be "privatize", used in 1940 in the American Sociological Review. Incidentally, the entries in OED are under "privatization" and "priviatize". Unlike many UK sources, the OED always favours "z" spellings. It also lists examples from The Times in the 1950s using the "z" form. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename articles should match categories. This term is clearly used in the United States, it is not in anyway uniquely British.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (regretfully) to match article and the rest of the tree. If the article gets moved at some point obviously the tree should go with it, but it is clearly not an uncontroversial move. Category:Privatization by country shows only 6 countries where English is a major language, and they are split 4/2 towards the 's' - a majority, but hardly an overwhelming one, so as I read WP:ENGVAR that means we should keep the status quo of 'z'. --Qetuth (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2013 (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: speedy delete per G4: discussion was here. (True, that discussion was a long time ago, but I think that the principle that we don't categorize films by actor is so well entrenched and well accepted now that the seven-year gap isn't terribly troublesome.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Madonna (entertainer) films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize films by actress. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This is a performacne by performer category. She is notable as a singer, not as an actress. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It is exactly a performance by performer category. Oculi (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is categorizing performances by a performer in them. We do not want to have any film categorized by all the actors involved. It is a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (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} 12:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Military Units of the United States Army in Europe.

Nominator's rationale: The category only has seven articles in it and is parented on Category:Organizations based in Europe rather than any categories relating to the US military in Europe so has little value for finding articles. Categories relating to US forces in Europe (eg Category:Military facilities of the United States in the United Kingdom) are for military facilities in a particular country eg bases. While serving in various wars has recognised categories for military units and formations, serving in peacetime in a particular location or country is non-notable. If the category tree included all countries/continents and all units of all branches of the US military which have ever been based overseas, it would be huge, though I can’t see this ever being done. Hugo999 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Articles in this category are not defined by having served in Europe. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is in the nature of a performance by performer category. The article that I checked was about a brigade that had served in many theatres of service. Maybe the word theatre is particularly apt! I suggest that we should not allow categorisation by present stationing where this is potentially impermanent. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename into "Category:Military Units of the United States Army in Europe during the cold war"? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What about the Category:Military units of the United States Army in South Korea ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since there are still US military units in Europe the "during the Cold War" modifier would not make sense. Units can be moved all over the place, so categorizing by location does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2013 (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.