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. — ξ^xplicit 20:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transport museums in the United States to Category:Transportation museums in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is not the normal US English usage and the category should be renamed to reflect the US parent, Category:Transportation in the United States naming. If this is renamed, there will need to be follow on nominations for the like named subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Is the US usage of "transportation" rather "transport" really a big enough difference to require its use in category names? There are many cases where the variations of English usage lead to misunderstandings and puzzlement if the local variant is not used, but is that really the case with "transport" rather than "transportation"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that it is. Transportation is the term that is generally used, transport is a specific activity. You transport (well, more likely deliver, or move) goods in a truck, you transport a patient to a hospital in an ambulance. A car is transportation, so is a bus, train or plane. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Maurreen (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in British English "Transport Museum" would be the normal term. I do not know US practice, but this should certainly not be used as a precedent for changing sister categories for other countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No intention of doing that unless the lead article is modified and that will not happen from this discussion. And even it that was to happen, local usage would still require using transport in many categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per our use-of-local-varieties-of-English policy; this is no more acceptable than a "Gas stations in the United Kingdom" would be. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The 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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American time travel films to Category:Time travel films

Nominator's rationale: Another category by Levineps that I think should go, this national offshoot of the master Time travel film category hinders rather than aids navigation, imo, as it would splinter the relatively small number of time travel films across a range of smaller time travel categories, if consistently applied. The master category is not overly large and does not require a US-only category, which has been largely neglected and underpopulated since its creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and per WP:OC#CATGRS. There's nothing inherently different about time travel films made by Americans from those made by anyone else. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per nom. Parent category isn't really that large for it to be broken down by country. Lugnuts (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom (but it is nothing to do with WP:OC#CATGRS, unless 'American' carries connotations of which I am unaware). It is also a subcat scheme for Category:American science fiction films, BTW, which is larger than Category:Time travel films; so should be upmerged to this parent too. Occuli (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nominator. I see no reason to upmerge to Category:American science fiction films since in my opinion the word "American" is relatively trivial here and Category:Time travel films is already a subcategory of the general Category:Science fiction films by genre. Debresser (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canada transport-related lists to Category:Canada transportation-related lists

Nominator's rationale: Rename per head article Transportation in Canada, and parent category Category:Transportation in Canada. (I screwed up when creating the category, and am not quite sure if this is a speedy). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose WP:ENGVAR. 'Transport' is just as common as 'transportation' in Canada. See for instance Transport Canada.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenikk (talk • contribs)
• Rename per nominator. Previous editor's argument has no bearing on that. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose either is an acceptable variant and the use of "transport" prevails for such categories. Alansohn (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, but not per WP:ENGVAR. "Transport" appears to be consistent with the general convention for similar categories (see Spain transport-related lists, United Kingdom transport-related lists, and United States transport-related lists); moreover, as the main article is Transport, I would support renaming most categories in the other direction (Transportation → Transport). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I generally prefer standardising categories rather than using local variants, so I wouldn't be sorry to see this one stay as "transport" ... but there is usually a strong principle of naming categories to match the head article. May I suggest that someone open a requested move discussion of Transportation in Canada to Transport in Canada, and that the category names shoud follow the outcome of that process? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How far up do you want to take this? The topic article, portal and wikiproject are all at 'transport', but the top category is at 'transportation'. Down the line, transport and transportation intertwine, with the preference of whoever created it being used. Transport is far dominant throughout the categories, but certain (both geographic and topical) areas are dominated by either one. If you look at the 'transportation in Canada' category, it is a mix of 'transport' and 'transportation'. For consistence and giving a professional impression of Wikipedia, all categories should be renamed 'transport' (I use US spelling, so I can make such a claim), but attempts at this have previously failed at CfD. I would support any mass-move of content from 'transport' to 'transportation', but a sufficient number of people here at CfD fell ENGVAR trumps both consistency and professionalism, and therefore we have the mess we have today; this is further burdened with the consensus-principle which essentially favors inconsistency as long as a small minority insist on it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are not going to solve this here, but in US English, transport is really ambiguous so using this in a transportation related category is probably a questionable choice. If transport is ambiguous and transportation is not or at least less so, that would appear to be the preferred choice of words. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- while both "transport" and "transportation" are used in Canada, "transport" is less common, the government ministry notwithstanding (in this case "transport" was chosen because it means the same in English and French [see official bilingualism in Canada and Federal Identity Program]). Furthermore "transportation" is more general, covering all forms of travel, while "transport" has a connotation of mass transit (probably borrowed from Britain). And yes, ENGVAR applies, as it should. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 11:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. As long as the parent article and parent category use "transport", it makes sense to me to use "transport" for the sake of consistency there. Otherwise the Canadian tree becomes an unpredictable mish-mash. Yes, either could be used—but let's just make it one of the other for each country's tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. As pointed out above, the Transport Canada department name, chosen during the Trudeau era as a sufficiently bilingual moniker, does not reflect real world common usage in Canada. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to Category:Canada transportation-related lists, and per head article Transportation in Canada, and parent category Category:Transportation in Canada. Moreover most of the subcats of Category:Transportation in Canada use transportation. Occuli (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment my interest here is solely in consistency among the sub-cats of Category:Transportation in Canada. If this nomination is rejected, I will open a group nomination to rename Category:Transportation in Canada to Category:Transport in Canada, with a similar Transportation→Transport renaming for all the sub-cats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This makes the category constent with other uses like Category:Transportation in Canada and Transportation in Canada. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)----[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all per nominator, for conformity with previous discussions on football categories, particularly the 2010 February 13 renaming of clubs by year of establishment . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Propose renaming

In followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 13#Category:Football (soccer) clubs by year of establishment, these categories should all be renamed as nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have tagged the parent category, but not all of the others. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. There really ought to be an easy way of doing this (speedier than 'speedy' which still involves tagging an enormous number of categories). Occuli (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all WFCforLife (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Sovetsk to Category:People from Sovetsk, Kaliningrad Oblast

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article and differentiate from other places, see Sovetsk disambig. Darwinek (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match full tile of parent article and to clarify for disambiguation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vs. (series) to Category:Capcom series

Nominator's rationale: Not quite too sure what to name this category, but its current name is very ambiguous. Perhaps rename to Category:Capcom series or something similar, but keeping as is would be very obscure. — ξ^xplicit 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Capcom crossover fighting games. I'm sure I've never heard this as "Vs." (that's this collectible card game system, which also features Marvel characters). Most of these articles have the term "crossover fighting game" in them, so that seems like a good name for the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category: SNK versus-series videogames since not all of them are CAPCOM, but they are made by SNK, and are videogames. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Vs. (video game series) and Vs. (Capcom franchise) are the best I can come up with. Whatever it'll be called, you may want to keep the games SNK created in mind, regardless the series belongs to Capcom. « ₣M₣ » 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Seems that Category:VS. Capcom series was recently created. Reviewing administrator may want to relist this nomination so the aforementioned category can get into the mix. — ξ^xplicit 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)----[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marca Futsal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small, eponymous category. No foreseeable expansion at this time. — ξ^xplicit 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. And Category:Luparense C5 too. Occuli (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too small. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American parkways to Category:Parkways in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename per naming convention of "Roads by country" tree. Bearcat (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match format used in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The 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. — ξ^xplicit 20:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian viewpoints to Category:Christian views

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category. The names seem virtually synonymous, but the parent cat and the "sibling" cats. are all named "X views" (with one exception.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as is. An amazing hodge-podge of all sorts of articles, few on either "views" or viewpoints". If it was focused like Category:Latter Day Saint views (which should be adjusted up to the main parent) it would be ok. This is useless. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Honestly, I agree, but I don't think it will pass CfD, nor should it be deleted per se; it should really just be cleaned up. Barring that, I don't see any sense in it having a slightly different name than all of these similar categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be easier at this point, however, to delete the category and simply create Category:Christian views anew for articles which specifically focus on a Christian view of X, e.g. Christian views on marriage or Christian views on suicide.- choster (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. I have not considered the option of deletion for lack of time. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Johnbod. I think he's right—we need to delete this in its current state, and re-create Category:Christian views and populate it properly. In its current state this is a bit of a travesty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. — ξ^xplicit 06:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by Masahisa Sunohara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in this category, violating WP:OC. I was unable to find any other films that would potentially populate this. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the category violates WP:OC, and no other articles that fit this category can be found then the best course of action would be to delete the category. The creator of Jazz musume tanjō may be creating more pages that fit this category, so I would hold off for a day or so until we know for sure. Osarius ^{That's me!} : _{Naggin' again?} : ^{What did I do?!} 01:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is part of Category:Films by Japanese directors and nothing is violated. Clearly its director is a defining characteristic of a film. Occuli (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn - I should've read better at WP:OC#SMALL: "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Thank you Occuli, I won't make the same mistake again. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs with music by Bronislau Kaper to Category:Songs with music by Bronisław Kaper

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article is called Bronisław Kaper, and although "Bronislau" is a common misspelling, I think the category title should match the main article title. Jafeluv (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.