< August 30	September 1 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Supervillains by team to Category:Supervillain teams

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More descriptive, matches all subcategories. Otto4711 (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - This looks so obvious, I feel like I'm missing something : ) - jc37 12:46, 3 September 2008 (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/rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Superheroes by team to Category:Superhero teams

Nominator's rationale: Merge - appears to be duplicative. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - This looks so obvious, I feel like I'm missing something : ) - jc37 12:46, 3 September 2008 (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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs with pop culture reference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - hopelessly vague and over-inclusive category. Few if any songs are defined by containing a pop culture reference. Otto4711 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's kind of more difficult to think of a song that doesn't have something that you could somehow describe as a "pop culture reference" of its day. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm not sure what this is intending to categorise, but there will almost certainly be better ways of acheiving the goal. Hiding T 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We Didn't Start the Fire for Mrs. Robinson's American Pie. - jc37 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Appreciate the support. You're the Top. Otto4711 (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2008 (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/delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:DC Comics superheroes in publication since 1940s to Category:DC Comics superheroes

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation – arbitrary inclusion criterion. There is no particular reason for choosing "1940s" as a cutoff, as opposed to any other decade, year, or date. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. I created this category because almost all DC superhero characters who have iconic status were created in the 1940s. the 1940s is not an arbitrary cutoff at all; it neatly and effectively defines all the superheroes who have real staying power, having been around for sixty years. this category enables readers and researchers to have a quick and easy way to view all characters which have real pop culture singificance. Additionally, someone trying to get information on this pop phenomenon might not know some of the lesser heroes who still have a large following.
  If anything, i could have created additional categories for 1950s and 1960s, to delineate those charcters who were published for 50 years and 40 years, but there are few notable superhero charcters who fall into any of those categories. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the claim that "almost all DC superhero characters who have iconic status were created in the 1940s" be supported by reliable sources? Even if it can be, is it especially surprising that the characters that have been around the longest are the ones with iconic status? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. however, actually all I meant is those characters who were either created in the 1940s or who were being published then, and who are also being published today. so no confirmation of iconic status is needed; all that's needed is an indication of whether the character is currently in publication. That is the distinction and grouping which I feel would be useful for the average reader. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - even assuming arguendo that the characters arbitrarily designated as "iconic" are indeed iconic according to reliable sources, the category is based on a false premise. Superman was first published in 1938. Batman in 1939. Many of the other characters included have not been in continuous publication since the 1940s. It's also redundant to Category:Golden Age superheroes. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Sorry, i don't mean that these characters were created in the 1940s, I just meant that they were in existence and were being published in the 1940s. So those examples which you cite still fit within these parameters. This is just a quick and easy way of identifying based on chronological duration, like many other categories here at Wikipedia. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Listify/Delete - I think this could possibly be an interesting list, but a category? Not so much. The 1940s (roughly the period between 1937 and 1942) is generally considered the start of the Golden age of comics (comic books in particular), so it's probably not "arbitrary". However, this spawns all sorts of possible variations, based on "historic comic book eras/ages". Probably not a good idea. Only "weak" listify, since I seem to recall a discussion at WT:CMC about merely adding a "publication start/end dates" section to the lists of comics. So really this may be superceded even by those (presuming it's been implemented). - jc37 22:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A definition of the 1940s which includes the late 1930s is rather peculiar and I don't realy see its use. Dimadick (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my earlier comment. The point here was to group all superheroes who have been around for sixty years or more. Again, i didn't say "created in the 1940s", i said "published during the 1940s". thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case. it's trivial. Characters at the whim of writers and editors can be published in any number of decades. While the intent here is to focus on major characters, there is no limitation inherent in the category. Otto4711 (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. thanks for your great comment which makes little if any sense. Are you saying that any character at all could be published in the 1940s, and could be published now, and so there's no intrinsic difference? that makes no sense. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional governors of U.S. states to Category:Fictional state governors of the United States

Nominator's rationale: To match the corresponding category for real people: Category:State governors of the United States. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, although, and it's not my strongest point, but would the "s" in "state" be capitalised? Hiding T 22:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the "s" is "state" would not appropriately be capitalized. Otto4711 (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. bd2412 T 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename per nom. Abreviations should be avoided in categories. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2008 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Dalek-related miscellany to Category:Daleks

Nominator's rationale: The scope of the category is redundant to the scope of Category:Daleks; in principle, everything related to Daleks could be Dalek-related miscellany. In cases where we can't find an appropriate subcategory for certain articles, we simply leave the articles in the parent category. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge, clearly. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge The term "miscellany" does not really define content, does it? Dimadick (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2008 (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. Kbdank71 12:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Antiguan and Barbudan sportspeople to Category:Antigua and Barbuda sportspeople
• Category:Antiguan and Barbudan footballers to Category:Antigua and Barbuda footballers
• Category:Antiguan and Barbudan athletes to Category:Antigua and Barbuda athletes
• Category:Antiguan and Barbudan football managers to Category:Antigua and Barbuda football managers

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention (as Category:Antigua and Barbuda people and its other sub-cat pages) Mayumashu (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. This seems to be the best solution when a country's name contains two separate place names, à la Bosnia and Herzegovina, Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Kitts and Nevis, etc., etc. There's ample precedent for this. (Now if we could just ditch "Vincentian" in favour of "Saint Vincent and the Grenadines"...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 31 August 2008 (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. Kbdank71 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rail stations by company to Category:Railway stations by company

Nominator's rationale: Move to conform with consistency. There is a hierarchical tree descending from Category:Railway stations. I am not saying this category's name is necessarily wrong or misleading, but it should conform with the naming of all the other hundreds of categories, almost all that seem to use "railway station" instead of "rail station". Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. The article is at train station. --NE2 16:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I'm not sure if this is a U.S./UK name divergence issue like "sports" vs. "sport", but I've noticed that most categories about rail transport use "railway", whereas U.S. categories tend to use "railroad", or sometimes just "rail". However, the U.S. categories in Category:Railway stations in the United States consistently use "railway", just like the other countries, so I'd have to agree here that we can rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (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: repopulate. Kbdank71 12:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G-14 clubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: G-14 was disbanded earlier this year. Postlebury (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - first of all, you've been here more than long enough to know that emptying categories before nominating them is against procedure, so you need to undo your revisions and repopulate the category. Second, the dissolution of the league doesn't mean that its former members should not remain categorized as such. The Negro League for example has been disbanded for a lot longer yet we have Category:Negro League baseball teams. Otto4711 (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another case where the category is empty!. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, there is a list at G-14 which fulfils the purpose. Given the membership changed over time, keeping the category for historical purposes doesn't really seem suitable since at different points in time the membership was different. However, I agree with Otto4711 that this category should not be emptied before nominating. The nominator should recategorise the articles removed until a decision is reached at this debate. Hiding T 21:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We keep athletes categorized under every team for which they played. I'm not seeing this as very different. I mean, I don't really care enough about this to make it an issue or anything and I won't cry bitter tears if this gets deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good point. I had thought we did that through former team players, but it looks like either we stopped doing that or my memory is faulty. I don't really care either way, either, but for me the article at G14 is pretty much enough. I'm not sure we need to categorise for everything. Hiding T 22:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just muddying the water here, so I'll withdraw. Hiding T 13:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Repopulate and Rename to Category:Football Clubs formerly members of G-14. This was clearly an important body in football politics and should be retained as a historical category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If renamed, perhaps Category:Former G-14 football clubs would be a bit better? Otto4711 (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Repopulate and keep without adding "former". See Category:American Basketball Association teams which were part of a league which has been defunct since 1976. Several of them are also categorized as NBA teams. — CharlotteWebb 13:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Repopulate and keep Categories should include uses historical subjects, not only current ones. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Repopulate and keep without adding in "former" as per CharlotteWebb's comments. Adding in "former" sounds like G-14 still exists and that clubs have left/been replaced. --Jimbo^[online] 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Repopulate and keep per all similar above. – PeeJay 18:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Repopulate and keep - I believe this issue came up somewhere else once before. Just because a grouping is not current hardly invalidates the category. matt91486 (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2008 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black and white football clubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of football clubs by what colour their kit is. --Jimbo^[online] 10:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't think it adds any value. What is the point? What's next? red colored teams, category for teams with vertical stripes, etc. Wait, maybe we should add one for their secondary kit too! Worthless category. -- Alexf⁴² 13:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While some of the clubs have taken inspiration from others for their colours, that should be cited in the text. The rest are totally trivial links - it's not as if colours have to otherwise be unique. The category name isn't even correct. Pointless category. Peanut4 (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this is overcategorization to the max! GiantSnowman 18:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per all, overcategorization by trivial characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - apart from the fact that the clubs are not black and white (only their kits are, and even then only when they're not wearing their change kits) it is a preposterously trivial thing to categorise clubs by. What's next, Category:Football clubs that serve Guinness in the clubhouse....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poorly named and pointless category. EP 22:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't really see any use for this category. Who would search for this term? Dimadick (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2008 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1857 species to Category:Species described in 1857

Nominator's rationale: Rename. as below. Tim! (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. To match Category:Species described in 2008 and others of the same format. Dimadick (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2008 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1766 species to Category:Species described in 1766

Nominator's rationale: Rename convention of Category:Species by year of formal description. Tim! (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. To match Category:Species described in 2008 and others of the same format. Dimadick (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2008 (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. Kbdank71 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:American Soccer League (1988/89) players to Category:American Soccer League (1988, 1989) players the '1988/89' and even '1988-1989' suggests a single season over parts of two calender years (as in European football or North Amer. basketball or ice hockey) where in fact, this league operated for two seasons
• Category:American Soccer League (1988/89) coaches to Category:American Soccer League (1988, 1989) head coaches this page is a sub cat page of Category:Football (soccer) managers and a football manager is a soccer head coach; besides assistant coaching is, encyclopedically, a non-notable occupation
• Category:American Soccer League (1988-1989) to Category:American Soccer League (1988, 1989)

Nominator's rationale: proposed rename adds clarity, completeness Mayumashu (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Commas look extremely awkward here. We wouldn't say "(1988, 1989, 1990)" if it lasted three years. Prefer changing the first two to "(1988-1989)" to match the third. — CharlotteWebb 14:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the accompanying article American Soccer League seems to imply the use of a roman numeral system to as a real-world disambiguator. This is equally worth considering and probably best answered by someone familiar with American soccer (oh, the incongruity). — CharlotteWebb 14:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dash, again, suggests a single season split over parts of successive calender years. A sports season never, however, lasts over parts of three years, so '1988 - 1990' would be not ambiguous, whereas 1988-1989 is. The roman numerial system set up on the article page, which by the way needs to be made into a disambiguation page with links to three separate pages (the three leagues that have existed named ASL have had nothing to do with each other besides share a name), is not part of a wider system, indeed is not a system but an original attempt to deal with ambiguity that conventional on wikip is done by setting the years of operation of a league in parentheses Mayumashu (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2008 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Greenville Drive Players to Category:Greenville Drive players

Nominator's rationale: Category:Greenville Drive Players should use the same format that the others use with players being lower case. Jackal4 (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2008 (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/wait for cleanup per discussion. Kbdank71 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former Southern Pacific stations in Oregon to Category:to be determined by consensus

Propose renaming Category:Southern Pacific Railroad stations in Oregon to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Trying to fix out-out-of-process emptying, renaming and soft redirect of original category to Category:Southern Pacific Railroad stations in Oregon by Plasma east. I created the original category as a designation for named stations of the SP (which doesn't exist anymore, hence the "former". And no station today is a Southern Pacific station.), meaning they could be synonymous with the settlement/locale in which the station existed. A "station" the way I understand the use of the term is the name the railroad company give a place the train stops. This is not necessarily synonymous with an actual building or "depot". What I wanted to do was to add the category to every place listed on the SP schedule in Oregon, as outlined in the book I mentioned on the category talk page. Some communities/locales wouldn't exist if the SP didn't decide to name the place the train stopped, and once the train no longer stopped there, it was no longer much of a place, either. If there is an actual depot building notable enough to have its own article, I added the category to the depot, not the community. This may have caused confusion. So a) I feel the out-of-process rename didn't honor the original intention of the category as created. This then has the potential to create needless splinter articles on buildings that don't exist, perhaps never existed, and are not notable. See the page history of and links to Irving, Eugene, Oregon, for an example of this. b) I may be completely off-base in my assumption about the meaning of station vs. depot. c) As my first choice, I'd like to see the category renamed in such a way to honor the original intention of the category, as it is likely the name I chose was incorrect. d) The idea of categorizing towns by their status as a place the SP once stopped may be overcategorization. e) On the other hand, the SP was an important influence on the history of Oregon, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, etc., etc. f) Since almost every railroad station in Oregon that has an article was once an SP station, if we are going to choose to talk about buildings not communities or locales, then this category should be completely deleted as unnecessary. g) My idea might be better served by a List of communities in Oregon that once were Southern Pacific railroad stations. Or something less clunky. Obviously I'm open to suggestions. Katr67 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See also: Category:Rail stations by company, above. Katr67 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Something like Category:Stations along New York Central Railroad lines is more what I was aiming for. Katr67 (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be a good name, because it allows for stations that were built after the SP stopped operating passenger service. --NE2 00:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Former Southern Pacific stations in Oregon to Category:Southern Pacific Railroad stations in Oregon. Given the small numbers involved, no reason to split the category. Simply put the defunct station in another defunct category in addition to the main one for Oregon. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The "former stations" yadda yadda category would hold about a hundred articles. If I populate the category (after I go to the library this evening), then what? Katr67 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Southern Pacific Railroad" should be replaced with "Southern Pacific Transportation Company". The SP subsidiaries in Oregon were never actually owned or operated by the SP Railroad; the SP Company was the operating company from 1885 to 1969, when it became the SP Transportation Company. --NE2 19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would imply a larger cleanup of the SP category structure starting with Category:Southern Pacific Railroad. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed; I just haven't gotten around to it. Probably the best example is that it's incorrect to say that the Southern Pacific Railroad operated into Ogden, but the SP Company and SP Transportation Company both did. --NE2 00:08, 3 September 2008 (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. "Summer" and "Olympic" in this case are both adjectives, the noun being "events". The adjective form is Olympic. Olympics is a noun. Compared to "Summer Olympics", where summer is the adjective and Olympics is the noun. . Kbdank71 13:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Summer Olympic events to Category:Summer Olympics events

Propose renaming Category:Winter Olympic events to Category:Winter Olympics events

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are events of the Summer Olympics or Winter Olympics, not Olympic events of the Summer or Winter. Featured articles like 2012 Summer Olympics bids display a correct title. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - it is standard English to say "Olympic event," not "Olympics event." These differ from the bids example because that category is refering to the specific Olympics. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Otto is correct IMO. The name is fine as is. -- Alexf⁴² 18:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: but is it correct to say it that way with a proper noun like "Summer" or "Winter" appended before? I mean, if we took out the "events" would "Summer Olympic" or "Winter Olympic" sound good on their own? I'm not a native English speaker, so forgive me if I'm totally wrong. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the category names as meaning "Olympic events that take place in summer/winter," not as "events of the Summer/Winter Olympics". FWIW, YMMV. Otto4711 (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, "Summer" and "Winter" are serving as adjectives here, not nouns. Otto4711 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These categories are, I think, meant to mean "events of the Summer/Winter Olympics", so I would tentatively suggest that the move would be correct. Perhaps a quick discussion at WP:OLY would be a good idea? Basement12 (T.C) 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I have never in my life heard the Summer Olympics being termed the Summer Olympic. Hiding T 13:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with Otto. I would say, "he won his Summer Olympic event", not "he won his Summer Olympics event". It's because "Summer Olympics" is acting as an adjective here, not a noun. The noun is "event", and is singular, so the adjective must also be singular in order to "sound right". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must have some interesting conversations if you casually talk about people winning their Summer Olympic event. Round my way we just say he won. We might say, did you see who won at the olympics? in a half rhetorical manner. Still, that's beside the point. What you have are the Olympic Games, an event which exists in plural form, since it constitutes multiple events. The term Olympic Games is often shortened to Olympics, noting the still pluralised form, to denote the plural games contested. These are sometimes qualified as referring to either the Summer or Winter staged Olympic Games, or Olympics. Now, to look at your example, you are referring to one of the many games within the "Games". That by itself is singular, and then you would use the singular form. You don;t use the singular when discussing the Games in their entirety. Also you err when you state 'The noun is "event", and is singular', since we can see by looking at the category name that it is pluralised as "events" whichever way you slice the cake. Also, Otto is incorrect to read it as "Olympic events that take place in summer/winter". Since in some parts of the world the Summer Olympics can be staged in winter, for example the Sydney games started in Australia's winter. If Otto's interpretation is correct then we would expect to find all the early events staged at the Sydney games categorised in Category:Winter Olympic events, with the later events in Category:Spring Olympic events. Not, these categories are to be read as "events of the Summer/Winter Olympics", because that is what they categorise, as one can see by looking at their contents. These are events broken into categories by either being held at the Summer or the Winter Olympics. So that's how they should be named. Hiding T 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like we just have different colloquial usages of the same terminology. I still think it's fine as is, but the fact that it takes an entire paragraph to explain why a different usage is actually correct should be a sign that we're perhaps straining too hard. I don't claim what sounds right to my ear is universally correct to all others' ears, but to say "Summer Olympics events"?—well, you'd be quite a la-dee-dah dandy if you ever said that in that way in my "interesting conversations". (I'm not sure why you assumed I was saying I would use this phrase in conversation; I was merely stating what I would say if forced to talk about it using all of the words. I think I'd rather kill myself than talk to anyone about an Olympic event, quite frankly.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Wow, this CfD is generating more discussion that I expected. I just wanted to point another thing: one sub-category of Category:Summer Olympic events is called Category:Summer Olympics events by year; it is around for two years, already. This is the inconsistency that should be avoided. Perhaps, I should've proposed better suited names, like Category:Sports in the Summer Olympics and Category:Sports in the Winter Olympics, because that's what the categories that populate each of these two categories describe: sports, not events. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2008 (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.