< May 24	May 26 >

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. Kbdank71 12:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Vision Factory artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorization of performers by management company is a form of overcategorization. Cf deleted Scott Boras clients; Players of American football by agent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, plus should be "recording artists" in a cat name. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Robofish (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2009 (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 per the "it's a sovereign nation but not a separate city in a 'by city' category tree" argument. Not going to upmerge as the two subcategories are already well-categorized in other religious categories; this doesn't stop anyone from being bold if they want to upmerge these. Kbdank71 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Christianity in Vatican City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems a bit, er, redundant. But I could be wrong. Please discuss. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Not totally redundant, though a little over-the-top... but it should be Category:Christianity in the Vatican City, surely. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any subcategories of Category:Vatican City that employ "the" in their names. I think it's typically called Vatican City or the Vatican, but not the Vatican City. - Eureka Lott 06:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm. Interesting. The article Vatican City alternates between the two terms (with/without "The"), but the state's official title is "The state of the Vatican City"). I've never heard it referred to before without the definite article, but it seems thateven the locals refers to it that way, so fair enough. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wha? Whether adjective or noun, it's either "Vatican City," "The Vatican," or "The Holy See" everywhere I've lived in the U.S.— essentially never "the Vatican City."-choster (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps it's one of those "US English vs rest-of-the-world English" things. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably you say "in the Quezon City," "in the Cape Town," and "in the Botany Bay" as well? ;-) -choster (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Grutness. It is part of Category:Christianity by city. (There is also Category:Religion in Vatican City, which appears to lack diversity.) Although there is Gardens of Vatican City so perhaps the 'the' is not essential. Occuli (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose suggested rename prior to convention being changed. This proposal would contradict the naming conventions for categories involving Vatican City. It explicitly says categories are named "of Vatican City" or "in Vatican City", with no "the". If this is wrong, let's get the convention changed first, and then change all the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - entirely redundant; sufficiently covered by Category:Christianity in Rome (of which the Vatican City is, practically speaking, a part). Robofish (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. So you'd similarly support upmerging of all Vatican City categories into Rome parents? If not, then I don't see that this follows. (The) Vatican City is a sovereign nation and technically separate from Rome, after all. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a separate state but not, despite the name, a separate city. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nvever said it was. All i said was that it is technically separate from Rome, which it is. It's a different country. Grutness...wha? 09:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge This is only a "by city" category, not a "by country" one (that is Category:Religion in Vatican City) & while Vatican City is a sovereign nation it is not a separate city - see for example the way the churches are categorized, all under Rome. Nb also the extraterritorial Properties of the Holy See. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category. If there were an article on some non-Catholic religious subject in the Vatican City, then maybe the category would make sense. Otherwise, the two included subcategories are basically already in the main Category:Vatican City somewhere, making the category is basically redundant. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vatican city is a sovereign state, so it should not be in a "by city" category. Furthermore, the only religion there will be Catholicism, so that the category is pointless. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2009 (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 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Stabæk I.F. players to Category:Stabæk Fotball players

Nominator's rationale: Correct name of the football club. Rettetast (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. lil2mas (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (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 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Fredrikstad F.K. players to Category:Fredrikstad FK players

Nominator's rationale: No dots in the club name. Rettetast (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. lil2mas (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (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 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Sentential logic to Category:Propositional logic

Nominator's rationale: Vastly more common in the literature Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nom. -- Avenue (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Both names are used, so it's not really a big deal which one we use. But I now believe I should have chosen the other name when I created the category, to reduce confusion. I have no objection to the rename proposal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:16, 1 June 2009 (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 to remove the periods; no consensus on any other change to the abbreviation. Kbdank71 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Larvik Turn & I.F. players to Category:Larvik Turn & IF players

Nominator's rationale: No dots in the clubs name. Rettetast (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, if this is the most common name, but then standard abbreviation should be used (like Sandefjord TIF), and it should be renamed Category:Larvik TIF players. But at the Norwegian Wikipedia, this club article is named Larvik Turn. If this proves to be the most common name, the category should be renamed Category:Larvik Turn players. The club article should be moved according to the change made here. lil2mas (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, although the correct abbreviation would be Larvik TIF. Punkmorten (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, ChickenFalls (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2009 (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 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Odd Grenland B.K. players to Category:Odd Grenland players

Nominator's rationale: No dots in the club name Rettetast (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but it should be renamed to Category:Odd Grenland players, since the club does not actually use BK as a suffix. I had a discussion on this topic at the Norwegian Wikipedia, see no:Diskusjon:Odd Grenland#Artikkelnavn. I tried moving the club article from Odd Grenland BK to Odd Grenland, but that page needs to be deleted first. That move should be done along with this renaming, to avoid confusion. lil2mas (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved. Proposal updated. Rettetast (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2009 (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 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Tromsø I.L. players to Category:Tromsø IL players

Nominator's rationale: No dots in the club name. Rettetast (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. lil2mas (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (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 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Aalesund F.K. players to Category:Aalesunds FK players

Nominator's rationale: No dots in the club name. Rettetast (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but it should be renamed to Category:Aalesunds FK players, since the club article name is Aalesunds FK. lil2mas (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I have updated my proposal. Rettetast (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (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 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Vålerenga I.F. players to Category:Vålerenga Fotball players

Nominator's rationale: This category only contains footballers, but the name does not reflect that. Vålerengens IF is a multi-sports club that also includes hockey. The players in this category are players of Vålerenga IF Fotball that is a part of the multi-sports club. Rettetast (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. and Template:Vålerenga Fotball managers. But the club article itself should also be moved from Vålerenga IF Fotball to just Vålerenga Fotball. lil2mas (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I have moved the article. Rettetast (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (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 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Strømsgodset I.F. players to Category:Strømsgodset IF players

Nominator's rationale: No dots in the clubs name. Rettetast (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. lil2mas (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (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 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Viking F.K. to Category:Viking FK

Nominator's rationale: No dots in the club name. The subcats should also be moved.

• Category:Viking F.K. managers --> Category:Viking FK managers
• Category:Viking F.K. players --> Category:Viking FK players

--Rettetast (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all per nom. lil2mas (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (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 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:F. C. Lyn Oslo to Category:FC Lyn Oslo

Nominator's rationale: No dots in the clubname. Subcat Category:F.C. Lyn Oslo players should be moved from Category:FC Lyn Oslo players. Rettetast (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both per nom. lil2mas (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (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 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Moss F.K. to Category:Moss FK

Nominator's rationale: There is no dots in the club name. Subcategory Category:Moss F.K. players should be moved to Category:Moss FK players. Rettetast (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both per nom. lil2mas (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (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. Kbdank71 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Living people to Category:Living persons

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Persons is the plural of "person," not people. There are several categories that make this error, but this is a good place to discuss. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The BLP tag on the talk page makes this category redundant (articles are listed in Category:Biography articles of living people too). Lugnuts (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you check whether the overlap is 100%? I believe a common scenario is for people to add the "living people" category, and then for those who are more into the nuts-and-bolts of Wikipedia to come along later and update the talk page. For that reason alone, keeping this as an article category, rather than a talk page category, is good. Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep vs Delete: Keep. It can't be declared redundant to a talk page category, because a talk page category isn't in mainspace, where it can be used by mainspace logic. For example, I'm pretty sure the BLP editnotice relies on it. Snowball keep 7 months ago.
  

Rename vs No rename: No rename. I advise people (or persons?) to read the last debate about this one, which ended Nom+2 in support; 9 for oppose - that's numbers of course, but the oppose arguments are rather compelling. One of the support votes looks jokey as well. Consensus can change, of course, but as I said, the oppose points raised last time round are rather strong, IMO. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the pedantry argument in the last debate and per the over-arching Category:People. Occuli (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Occuli; no compelling reason to change it, IMO. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if anyone wants this nomination to receive fair consideration, post a notice on the project pages that really depend on it. This is a special case category and any changes should not be made without proper input. Is this the largest category on the wiki? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's the largest, according to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Categories and templates. (Currently claiming 375,130 total.) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we cannot help it if those who let us play in their Wiki have poor grammar and force us to have this cat. Get over it and moooooove on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with last argument. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikt:People points to Suppletion#Examples which says: "The regular plural persons occurs mainly in legalistic use. The singular of the unrelated noun people (from Latin populus) is more commonly used in place of the plural, e.g. 'two people were living on a one-person salary'". I think we're fine, for now. This isn't an its/it's egg-on-face-catastrophe. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Consistency and symmetry are valuable criteria for change, but pedantry is not.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't rename - While "persons" is the correct plural, it is too formal and in informal speech feels like a childish wrong word. "People", on the other hand, is the commonly used plural across the several varieties of English that I'm familiar with. While, for ease of communication, we must have standard orthography and word usage, we must also not restrict the normal movement of the English language across time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't rename - Actually, "people" is a good example of a "mass noun"; it is like other mass nouns such as "rice", "luggage", "furniture" in that it always refers to a collection and has no allowed inflection for a unit of the collection. "Mass nouns" have different grammatical rules than do "count knowns", those things we normally think of as prototypical nouns, with their rules of "singular" and "plural". Studerby (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't rename: Simply, the costs outweigh the benefits. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not rename - The idea to delete is ridiculous considering how many projects/tasks revolve around articles in this category right now. As for the rename, anything with "Living persons" should be renamed to "Living people" including the policy, for reasons nicely stated above by Quiddity, Beeswaxcandle, and Studerby. لennavecia 12:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename. Not worth it, even if the grammar argument was correct (and it's not). People is a perfectly valid plural of person - see e.g. English plural#Nouns with multiple plurals. -- Avenue (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No reason to change status quo for a category this widely used. Alansohn (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not rename per MZMcBride and Jennavecia, I think it would introduce too much confusion into (a) large-scale project(s), and bring a net negative to too many aspects of the 'pedia. — Ched :  ?  19:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not rename. Long established name used in hundreds of thousands of articles. I can't stand the idea that people (or persons) would start renaming this name in large scale. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For status quo. Should it be mentioned that the ((Lifetime)) template is impacted by this category as well?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is long established and populated in part by inserting LIVING in the lifetime template and surrogates such as BD. This is thus a complex nomination, which cannot easily be dealt with by the closing ADMIN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it as it is we are all used to 'people'; I can see no advantage in changing it. Saga City (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2009 (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: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_7#Locomotive_designer_and_railway_engineer_categories,--Aervanath (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Locomotive designers/builders to Category:Locomotive builders and designers

Category:Austrian railway engineers to Category:Austrian locomotive designers

Category:British railway engineers to Category:British locomotive designers

Category:German railway engineers to Category:German locomotive designers

Category:Swiss railway engineers to Category:Swiss locomotive designers

Nominator's rationale: Rename for the sake of accuracy and clarity. In most English dialects, railway engineer denotes a person who drives and operates the train, not designs it. Also, I think the main category should be "Locomotive builders and designers", rather than having a slash in it. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say rename the category as Category:Locomotive designers (and seperated into Fooland locomotive designers, ie entries by nationality). Also incorporate Category:Locomotive superintendents, which seems to be an old British term for Chief Mechanical Engineer. And call it locomotive designers not locomotive builders and designers (the builder is either a railway workshop or a separate company, or going down to the shop floor is the machinist!).

Railway engineers (category) in practice seem to be mechanical engineers, which ignores the contributions of railway civil engineers in surveying and locating and laying track and bridges/tunnels. There does not even seem to be an article on A M Wellington the great railway location engineer!

Re Rail Transport categories, I have recently made various nationality categories for Category:People in rail transport; so that “German people in rail transport” can also link into “Rail transport in Germany” and “German people by occupation”. How about categorising all the entries in “People in rail transport” by nationality so that they link into these country categories also? Hugo999 (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – in the UK the driver of a train is not called a 'railway engineer', so the article railway engineer does not apply to the UK. See eg List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Great Western Railway. Also a 'railway engineer' does not necessarily design locomotives, eg Carl Roman Abt designed railways. (The tree is undoubtedly a mess.) Occuli (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see OED "Engineer" 5 b: in England only those in charge of engines of war and ship engines, in the US train drivers. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As below: Keep but reallocate the articles between railway engineers (civil engineers), involved in track landscaping and construction, and mechanical engineer Locomotive designers/builders. At the moment both groups are in these categories - eg George Furness, Carl Ritter von Ghega etc. Category:Rail transport designers could indeed be used as a super category, with the articles also re-allocated. Some of course were both, but relatively few. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Split, the issue is to what. I'd suggest:

  Category:Locomotive designers

  Category:Locomotive builders

  Category:Railway designers

  and carry this down to the subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first two might be ok, but 2engineers" is clearer and more usual than "designers" for civil engineers. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I must admit to being a little confused by the initial comments that "In most English dialects, railway engineer denotes a person who drives and operates the train, not designs it." That may be true in the US with railroad engineers, but in my experience the terms locomotive driver or locomotive operator are far more widely used for, erm, locomotive drivers in UK English-speaking countries (including places like Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand), whereas railway engineer tends to be used for the actual engineers. Sir Nigel Gresley was a railway engineer, but that doesn't mean he drove the trains. Given that we tend to use UK English for non-English speaking countries in Europe on Wikipedia, the above categories are correctly named. I suspect some work is needed both on the title of this category and on an article on railway engineers (which should at least be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect). But even if it was a redirect, this category would still be confusingly named, so the split Vegaswikian suggests is probably a good one. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Railway engineer is now a dab page. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Railroad engineer is the one who operates trains. Confusion is from the similar names and the different usage of the term engineer. 71.55.122.199 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it's true that in the US and Canada, a railroad engineer is an engine driver, as far as I know the term railway engineer is never used there - and that term has a different meaning in the places where it is used. I agree that the category should be renamed and split per Vegaswikian's suggestion, I'm just pointing out that you're arguing under a misapprehension if you think that the term "railway engineer" is widely used for a locomotive operator "in most English dialects" - as far as I know, it's rarely used in any dialects that way. It's not used that way in the US or Canada (where the word "railroad" is used), and it's not used that way in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or just about anywhere else which uses UK English. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category:Rail transport designers will have as subcategories “Fooland locomotive designers” ie by nationality and as well as Austrian, British German & Swiss there should be American, Canadian, French and Italian locomotive designers; I suppose there would be someone from each of those countries. Are there engineers to justify a separate category by country for civil/construction/surveying and location engineers? The categories for Railway entrepreneurs and perhaps Railway pioneers have only Austrian, German & Swiss subcategories at present; if they are useful categories there should be subcategories for the other countries as well. Hugo999 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2009 (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: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_7#Category:Railway_engineers.--Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway engineers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, redundant with Category:Locomotive designers/builders; see also above nomination. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – we have Category:Railway engineers, Category:Railway engineers by nationality and then 4 subcats (listed above). These 6 should be treated together. There seem to be no US ones ... what are such people called in the US, and elsewhere? What is George Pullman for instance? (He designed carriages, not locomotives.) There is already Category:Rail transport designers, which could be used as a super-category. Occuli (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but reallocate the articles between railway engineers (civil engineers), involved in track landscaping and construction, and mechanical engineer Locomotive designers/builders. At the moment both groups are in these categories - eg George Furness, Carl Ritter von Ghega etc. Category:Rail transport designers could indeed be used as a super category, with the articles also re-allocated. Some of course were both, but relatively few. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup. I reparented the by nationality category to Category:Rail transport designers. This category has major problems, it is just so wrong to have an introduction that points to a lead article while the rest of the introduction says that the lead article does not apply here but here is the inclusion criteria being used. Removing that one subcategory ad rewording the introduction allows for inclusion of individuals who qualify since they did the job defined under the main article. It remains to be seen if this makes the category too small. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Railroad engineers to match the parent of Railroad engineer. This is a category for people who drive trains, not those who design railroads. Alansohn (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When populating Category:Railroad engineers it was interesting to note that railroad engineers was used in several cases when railway engineer was probably the intended use. Care is needed in cleaning up these differences. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't! We have that category, which should be renamed to Category:Train drivers, as only about 2/16 of the articles are about Americans, and some seem to me to have been other kinds of engineers - the similar titles, using a US-only usage, are clearly leading to confusion. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Train drivers is not a good choice since these people do much more then drive a train. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do they? What? It is unambiguous at least. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/split per discussion in the next section up. Alansohn, these are a completely different thing to railroad engineers, who are engine drivers - these are the actual railway engineers, i.e., the civil engineers and designers who make the railways. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 26 May 2009 (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: G4 speedily deleted (caps change only from previous category). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grammy award nominees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-notable and unnecessary category. There's no precedent of "award nominees" or anything of that type. — Σxplicit 04:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following comment was added to the page after the discussion was speedily closed:
Hi Explicit and everyone else. I hope I'm responding in the correct place. I have now read a response to me from Explicit that included the following explanation:

The main reason I've nominated the category for deletion is for the fact that it lacks a precedent. For example, for Category:Grammy Award winners, is a subcategory of Category:Music award winners, which is a subcategory of Category:Award winners, and so on. As you'll see, there is currently no Category:Award nominees, and I believe your category is the only one to include nominees.

If my new category of Grammy award nominees needs to be a subcategory of Music award winners and in turn a subcategory of Award winners, that's fine. But, to consider a Grammy Nomination less than an award is quite insulting to many musicians who have been significantly recognized and honored by their. Most musicians go their entire career with no Grammy Nominations whatsoever. More importantly, the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences (NARAS or The Grammys) sends out ballots to its membership, who vote in the first round for the nominees. From a very long list of submissions (submitted only by members and music companies) the membership votes in a first round to determine who the nominees are for each category. NARAS considers the nomination itself as an award and even holds an official ceremony to honor the nominees several days prior to the telecast. During that ceremony, certificates are presented to each nominee for having won the nomination. By way of example, when a movie or an actor is nominated for an academy award, but doesn't win, the studio certainly advertises the nomination long after the awards ceremony. Just being nominated is and of itself is a notable event that is clearly notable and worthy of recognition.

I submit that artists who have won a nomination, should be entitled to be classified as something less than a Grammy Award Winner, but certainly more than an artist who has never been nominated at all.

Explicit appears to be pursuing a career in the music industry himself, and I wish him the best of luck. As a voting member of the academy, I hope to be voting for him one day. If he is nominated, I am quite certain he would consider it an honor worthy of recognition within the pages of Wikipedia, regardless of whether he actually took home the Grammy.

I thank you in advance for considering my opinion.

Todd --Warriorboy85 (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2009 (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. Kbdank71 13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Studio killers to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete or do something. I'm speechless—meaning I'm not too sure what to propose here. The idea from the definition would suggest that this category is essentially Category:Films that caused their studio production companies to shut down due to poor performance. I expect any suggested rename is going to be awkward. I suggest deletion be considered, since there may not be a 1:1 relationship between the film's performance and the studio closing. There are always other factors—most likely these films were just one important straw in the load that broke the camel's back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is essentially impossible to define a criteria for entry. On the contrary, what you could do is create a list and provide sources (e.g. List of films considered the worst.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure POV - essentially everyone has an opinion on these, but there is no objective inclusion/exclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This category lists movies that caused their studios to shut down. Since there couldn't be too many of these, i thought that i'd create a category. What's wrong with this category, the name, the category's strategy, or is it not defining? Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the last two sentences in my nomination. How does one prove direct cause and effect here? There are always other factors to a studio closing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unacceptable name. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I named it "studio killers" for short of whatever it could've been called. The alternative name above is way too long. I didn't create this category with stupid intentions. Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying your intentions were stupid — but I think you might want to familiarize yourself with categorization policies, such as WP:OCAT, to get a better sense of what's considered useful categorization or not. It's not necessarily valid or useful to create a category for absolutely every possible grouping of multiple topics that you can think of — we're an encyclopedia, not The Book of Lists. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One option might be to broaden the focus on "final films released by film studios" and not make any sort of causal claim, but even that might be too complicated for a category to handle. Thoughts? Postdlf (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorization skirting the edge of original research. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (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. Kbdank71 13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominating Category:Speculative Science

Nominator's rationale: Delete (or rename if someone knows what this is really all about). I'm not sure what to do with this, though I'm leaning towards deletion. There is no article about Speculative science, which suggests to me that it's probable that this is a POV-fork with Category:Pseudoscience, though I can understand the distinction the creator is trying to draw. But the only article currently included is Scalar field theory (pseudoscience), which (if there is a distinction between speculative science and pseudoscience) obviously belongs in a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience (where it already is), making the nominated category empty and/or redundant. I suggest an article be written prior to the creation of a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the nominator that this is a POV fork of Category:Pseudoscience. Robofish (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2009 (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. Kbdank71 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Parker1297 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per previous consensus to disallow categories for user space organisation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Good Ol’factory. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - When UCFD was seperate, we had recently just started to speedy close these as a form of IAR. I wouldn't oppose continuing that practice here, since these have no chance of being kept without some large change in consensus/DRV discussion. VegaDark (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds reasonable. I'm not aware of a single case where one of these hasn't been deleted after being nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2009 (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. Kbdank71 13:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Convert to article Category:Irish Pig Breeds to article Irish pig breeds

Nominator's rationale: Article masquerading as a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Irish Pig Breeds was also set up & has been prodded, as it is cut n'paste from the 2 breed articles. No need for the cat - that the Tamworth pig is "Irish", as opposed to having some Irish input, is very POV anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good. I wasn't aware of the article; thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Kaaveh (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2009 (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--Aervanath (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Museum collections to Category:Works by museum

Nominator's rationale: Rename.

1. This is a subcategory of both Category:Museums and Category:Works of art.
2. The present wording can be read two or three ways, as the lead text notes: "This category is only for a) sub-categories of articles on individual objects, or lists of them, or b) specialized collections, in the Collections of museums and art galleries. Please add articles on museums in the correct sub-category/ies of Category:Museums." This invites confusion and the injunction not to add "articles on museums" that happen to be called, e.g., The Wallace Collection is often ignored. There less ambiguity in the proposed title.
3. There is confusion in the naming of this category's subcats: Category:Collections of the Musée d'Orsay (collections plural), but Category:Collection of the Hermitage (collection singular). Both formulations are grammatically collect, which makes agreeing on a right one impossible. If we change the parent category title to Works by museum it follows that the subcats all be renamed according to the formula Works in the X Museum, which solves our problem.

Ham 23:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – but the standard convention is for Category:Works by museum to be a subcat scheme for Category:Works, so this would introduce a new dimension of confusion. (Eg we have Category:Works by artist and many siblings, confusingly housed in Category:Creative works.) Occuli (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, but as subcategories of Category:Works are apparently not allowed, it looks like that messiness is here to stay. Ham 10:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this but perhaps set up Category:Works by museum also, transferring many across. Really articles on individual works should be kept separately from articles on collections. All the 41 articles in the main cat are about collections, not works, although I accept most of the sub-cats contain mainly works. For some reason there seems to be a phobia about categorizing collections and their history, which is a subject that has been receiving a great deal of academic attention in recent decades. Note also that a great number of the museum sub-cats for art galleries, like Category:Collection of the Alte Pinakothek, belong only in the sub-cat Category:Paintings by collection. "Works" is only needed for mixed museums. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if my proposal seems to exemplify this "phobia" for the history of collecting; I admire your work on Orleans Collection et al. "Really articles on individual works should be kept separately from articles on collections" – I agree 100%. I would happily settle for Works by museum as a subset of a retained Museum collections cat. But IMO many of the 41 articles in the existing cat are better categorised as "Private collections"/"Former private collections"/"Museums" etc. etc. Ham 10:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt a few do, and some belong in both. At first glance Gilbert Collection and National Cartoon Museum for example might not seem to belong here, but in fact both have closed as museums, & I think this is a valid cat for them now. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- a museum may house a number of separate collections of artefacts, each consisting of a number of artefacts. The examples that immediately spring to mind are of books in the British Library (formerly in British Museum), such as Thomason Tracts and Harliean Collection, but the same considerations will apply to museum collections. Category:Works by museum only partly solves the problem. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (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.