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 Category:Wikipedia style templates. – Fayenatic London 08:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Style guideline templates to Category:Style templates

Nominator's rationale: Incorrect name that does not describe the contents (the actual style guideline-related templates are in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style templates; these are just random style-related templates. We really need a speedy C2F for this sort of thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as proposed These are not style-topic templates, they are templates wholly related to Wikipedia, and not the topic of style, so should have "Wikipedia" or "WikiProject" included in the category name -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2016 (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. The category's function seems to have been improved during the discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Private armies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. This cat is duplicitous as its subject area is handled already by Category:Militias, Category:Rebel groups by country, Category:Irregular military, Category:Mercenaries. The cat is also severely underpopulated as it only have four articles, beside the main article, and one of these is a redirect to a biographical page.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We do not need orphan "parent" categories that are just misc. ways to lump different things together as an overgeneralization, unless it is necessary for the integrity of the category structure. All of these things can be more specifically categorized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recent additions to this don't seem to fit - they could better fit in military wings of political parties or chivalric orders.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is grouping too many unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I agree that the content is too disparate to make a good category. As I look at it there are much more than 4 articles. All are armies of non-state entities. We have the crusader military orders, which were in a sense international armies, not private ones. The Teutonic Order crated a state. The Templars and Hospitallers were in a sense originally armies of the crusader state of Outremer; and the Hospitallers later had their own states in Rhodes and then Malta. The military wings (or militias) of political parties is quite different. Then we have the Atholl Highlanders who were (are) a sort of pretend army. My reaction is to split, by moving most articles to subcategories, and then to see what we are left with. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I've taken the liberty to execute Peterkingiron's idea of moving most articles to relevant subcategories, just in order to facilitate the discussion. We're now left with just more than a handful of articles, most of them are some sort of "personal army", and three subcats. It may be worthwhile to keep, though I don't have strong feelings about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck part of previous comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Category has a legitimate main article, has 3 subcats (with hundreds of articles and several direct articles and it is capable of continued growth as private armies not only have existed in the past, continue to exist in the present, and will no doubt be created in the future. Private armies arise when the level of disorder in a society reaches a certain point that the state can no longer suppress them and there is dispersed private power with leaders wanting to succeed with their own violent methods. This category is the correct method of grouping them together; there is no other category that does this. Hmains (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2016 (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 and rename. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Depopulated places in the Land of Israel to Category:Former populated places in Palestine
• Propose renaming Category:Former populated places in Palestine to Category:Former populated places in Palestine (region) added one day later

Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories seem to have the same objective. I would actually also recommend to add "(region)" to the target category, for disambiguation, as it concerns the historical region Palestine and not the State of Palestine, and C2C to its parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Cfr template in the target category for renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - Israel and Palestine are two neighbouring countries. Land of Israel and Palestine region are geographic regions which somewhat overlap. The proposal is totally confusing.GreyShark (dibra) 17:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize there may be confusion about State of Palestine versus Palestine (region), that's exactly why I've also included a rename in the nomination. Land of Israel and Palestine (region) largely overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and rename per nom. Having two categories for exactly the same purpose is anathema to the purpose of wikipedia's categorisation system. If this proposal fails, it will be a textbook case of wikipedia's struggle to achieve rational outcomes in the Israel-Palestine arena. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both. The name "Land of Israel" is a term of art unfamiliar to most readers, and as noted above we do not need duplicate categories just because people want to bicker and WP:POVFORK. We don't have separate categories for both sides of the Northern Ireland dispute, etc., for good reason. Go with what the RS most of often use, even if it makes one side of the dispute unhappy (no matter what happens one side will be unhappy, so that's a moot point).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both. Palestine (region) is a long-established geographical term with several millennia of history. Land of Israel is unclear and has no defined borders. Even the article on the nebulous subject says it is a variant name for "an area of indefinite geographical extension in the Southern Levant". Dimadick (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both -- The point is that the places were depopulated in the course of the Israeli independence struggle, at the start of which both the present Israel and Palestine were part of Mandatory Palestine. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2016 (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 to Category:Levant, except for articles/subcategories that are already located elsewhere within that hierarchy. Although this discussion shows mixed opinions, there is a degree of consensus that this category is overpopulated at present and overlaps too much with related categories. Those who preferred to keep it have not addressed that problem, which is the core of the nominator's rationale. Since "Southern Levant" is used in academia (apparently for political neutrality), then rather than delete or redirect the category page I will make it a disambiguation page between Category:Levant, Category:History of the Levant, Category:Land of Israel and Category:Palestine (region). As for the metallurgy article, I will move this to Category:Levant since it is about prehistory, not the Ancient period. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Southern Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. While the header says the category should not overlap with other related categories, in practice it does overlap very clearly. All of the articles except the eponymous article belong in (and usually already are in) a more specific category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and purge. Category describes a region containing at least the respective countries' categories and Nonferrous Archaeometallurgy in the Southern Levant. The other listed articles, unless referring to the whole region, should be purged though. --PanchoS (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would rather suggest to move the article to Category: Ancient Levant. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Southern Levant is a valid geographic region; there is an article, so there can be a category. GreyShark (dibra) 17:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not every article needs to have its own category. In this case I think there is simply too little content about the topic on its own. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Category:Ancient Levant and purge as needed, per revised proposal accepted by nom. If there end up being multiple articles pertaining to the geological reason (assuming it is a formal one, though that should be verified and the article renamed if not), then a Category:Geological region of the Southern Levant or whatever can be created later when it's needed. We rarely need one-article categories, generally only if we are sure the category will grow, or if the category missing will do some kind of violence to a systematic sub-categorization schema.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to avoid misunderstandings, I agree with moving Nonferrous Archaeometallurgy in the Southern Levant to Category:Ancient Levant, besides the subcategories can be moved, one level higher, to Category:Levant and all the rest should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment favour move of appropriate articles to Category:Ancient Levant, also that as Nonferrous Archaeometallurgy in the Southern Levant includes the Iron Age, perhaps "Nonferrous" could be removed from the title (and should it be "of the Southern Levant" not "in") Hugo999 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge and then reconsider need for category. I have held the view that the way this category has been used is highly duplicative for some time now, as discussed on the talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just check the list of articles:

Hope this is convincing enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes it is, thank you. Changed my vote. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all articles are parts of subcategories of the Levant category. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Levant. I have to express disappointment that "non-ferrous" has been removed from the title to an article, I suspect by a non-specialist. The emphasis of the article is on non-ferrous metals, and on the continuing use of bronze during the earlier parts of the Iron Age. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of use in academic fields, there was previously far greater use on wikipedia but multiple links/pages were stealthily removed for political purposes Drsmoo (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Military education and training facilities in Serbia to both Category:Military education and training in Serbia and Category:Military installations of Serbia

Nominator's rationale: Rather redundant extra-level of categorization with sparse content and not part of any larger categorization scheme. PanchoS (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support makes sense. — B.Sc-bound (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2016 (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 to Category:Military education and training in Poland. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Military schools in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Almost empty and redundant. Single subcategory Category:Military academies of Poland already lives in Category:Military education and training in Poland. No prejudice against recreation once there is more content. --PanchoS (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge almost per nom (almost in that we would never need to recreate the category if it's redundant; "schools" and "academies" are synonyms for this purpose).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:21, 18 March 2016 (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. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:International swimming competitions hosted by the Netherlands to Category:International aquatics competitions hosted by the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: The renamed category will include diving and aquatics competitions, and will be part of a series by country, see Category:International aquatics competitions by host . The present category appears to be unique to the Netherlands. Hugo999 (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency with the other categories in Category:International aquatics competitions by host, however without prejudice against splitting/refining these categories at a later point. --PanchoS (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, but most recent international events are aquatic, some swimming but few exclusively diving or synchronised swimming, and it would be difficult to disentangle them Hugo999 (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support/comment I support the rename, but e.g. Category:International aquatics competitions hosted by Russia is a subcategory of Category:Swimming competitions in Russia and Category:Diving competitions in Russia. Shouldn't the latter two be subcategories of Category:International aquatics competitions hosted by Russia instead? Gap9551 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:International aquatics competitions hosted by Russia (and other countries) have the parent categories of the national swimming & diving competitions as do most "International sports competitions" etc. so that they link to the national category for each sport Hugo999 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the explanation is that "international" is a subcat of general competitions. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 21 May 2016 (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. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:PATH stations to Category:PATH (rail system) stations
• Propose renaming Category:PATH stations in New Jersey to Category:PATH (rail system) stations in New Jersey
• Propose renaming Category:PATH stations in New York to Category:PATH (rail system) stations in New York

Nominator's rationale: Some opposed speedies (see copied discussion below). I initially nominated these so that the names would match PATH (rail system). A user opposed these changes as unnecessary disambiguation, and he has a point. The head category has since been renamed Category:PATH (rail system). This reminds me of the issues surrounding unnecessary disambiguation on the subcategories of Category:Georgia (country) and Category:Georgia (U.S. state). My understanding is that the usual practice for categories is that we keep the disambiguator on all subcategories of a disambiguated head category, even if it's probably unneeded for clarity. See, eg, this discussion, which I remember closing because the consensus was so strong in this direction, and that somewhat surprised me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, to match PATH (rail system). Seems an obvious one. Oculi (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Djflem is correct that disambiguation of these categories are not needed. The difference between PATH and Georgia is that with Georgia, there are two localities with the same name, so a parenthetical disambiguator in categories is always necessary because natural disambiguation is not possible. However, with this PATH, there are no other rail/transit systems that it needs to be disambiguated from. Therefore, the word "stations" acts as somewhat of a natural disambiguator from the other types of PATH. The only argument to add the disambiguator is for consistency, not necessity. If "PATH stations" already acts as natural disambiguation, then there is no need for additional parenthetical disambiguation. Also, it just looks bad to have parenthetical disambiguation in the middle of a title: "PATH (rail system) stations", and putting the disambiguating term at the end seems to create this unnecessary double/useless disambiguation: "PATH stations (rail system)". I don't think an argument for consistency is enough for this. --Scott Alter (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: "station" is itself a natural disambiguator, and this distinguishes it from the Georgia cases (though it is conceivable that some Georgia cases might also not need a parenthetical; e.g. anything with "[N|n]ational" in it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The proposal clearly aligns with policy of matching the main article. I think individually re-examining every category will consume a lot of our time without a navigational benefit. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "station" is itself a natural disambiguator, unlike Georgia, the country, and Georgia the state, which share an identical name.Djflem (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Georgia case, the argument was essentially that "Interstate Highways" was a natural disambiguator, since there are no Interstate Highways in the country of Georgia. So I don't see the two cases as that different. PATH = Georgia (both being ambiguous); stations = Interstate Highways (the alleged natural disambiguator). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- There is no reason why the fact that the parent article needs a disambiguator should require the children to have them too. The converse also applies: we have an article Birmingham but the categories are at "Birmingham, West Midlands" to keep those on Birmingham, AL out of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, both Georgia categories have a very similar subcategory structure under them and it wouldn't make sense to make an exception just for one single subcategory, as in the previous discussion. With PATH this is not the case, the whole topic of PATH (rail system) is completely dissimilar to any other PATHs and so is the category tree. Having said that, RevelationDirect also has a point. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2016 (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. I note that the parent Category:Psychopathy in fiction currently includes some characters as well, which might need purging; the list Fictional portrayals of psychopaths would be the better place to collect verifiable instances. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional psychopaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Deleted at CfD in 2007, recreated very recently. Delete per 2007 result. Due to 9 years since CfD, it is probably inappropriate to invoke CSD G4. Safiel (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Previous discussion located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 14#Category:Fictional sociopaths. Safiel (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#Subjective. No clear inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Psychopathy itself is rather ill-defined and not a valid term used in modern psychology. Per our article on the subject: "Although no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis titled "psychopathy", assessments of psychopathic characteristics are widely used in criminal justice settings in some nations, and may have important consequences for individuals. The term is also used by the general public, in popular press, and in fictional portrayals." Dimadick (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it doesn't really matter what the real world criteria for psychopathy is, a fictional psychopath would just need to be reliably sourced to statements that the fictional character is clinically psychopathic (instead of hyperbole statements of being psycho) . As a fictional characteristic, it can be defining, and the author can make statements of fact that the character is a psychopath/psychotic as they create their characters as they may. The relationship between the fictional actions of the character and classical psychopathy are immaterial to their being a fictional psychopath. (just as a fictional police officer may do nothing like real world policing) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per no clear inclusion criteria, since the term is essentially meaningless today.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Psychopath has had a changing definition over time. Thus we will either use it anachronistically, or use it for unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Fictional characters with neurological or psychological disorders. There are four articles that explicitly mention that the character is a psychopath, while with the other articles it is more vague. The parent category fits better for all. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2016 (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, in the second case to Category:Proposed NJ Transit rail stations. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:New Jersey Transit stations to Category:NJ Transit stations
• Propose renaming Category:Proposed New Jersey Transit stations to Category:Proposed NJ Transit stations

Nominator's rationale: I originally nominated these in the speedy section to match the category names to NJ Transit/Category:NJ Transit. However, a user commented (see copied discussion) that the new category name should contain "rail" or "train", since NJ Transit also has bus stations, and they are not included in this category. I think that this is a good point. I propose we either (1) rename to Category:NJ Transit rail stations or Category:NJ Transit train stations; or (2) rename as originally proposed, and adding the articles about the bus stations to the category. I have also included the "proposed" category in this discussion so it can match whatever is decided. (If (1) is selected, I have no preference of "rail" vs. "train", though it is NJ Transit Rail Operations.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposed. This category scheme is all stations belonging to the specific company NJ Transit, not necessarily just the rail stations. If you look at Category:Railway stations in the United States by company and Category:Rapid transit stations in the United States by operator, "Railway" or "Railroad" only exists for categories of companies that include this in their corporate name. If one wants a separate category for NJ Transit rail stations, then that is a possibility, but should be separate from this CFD. --Scott Alter (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Matches the main article and the common name. No preference on specifying "rail". RevelationDirect (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppse New Jersey Transit Bus Operations also operates stations, such as Hackensack Bus Terminal. This category incudes only List of NJ Transit stations and Light rail in New Jersey stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
  • @Djflem: my nomination takes this into account. Which of the two solutions, (1) or (2), would you prefer to deal with this? I don't think what you have said is a sufficient reason to prevent changing "New Jersey" to "NJ" in the category names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of NJ Transit (as opposed to New Jersey Transit) is not at issue.

Catgeory:NJ Transit stations could have:

Category:NJ Transit rail stations (which would include Category:NJ Transit train stations and Category:NJ Transit light rail stations) & Category:NJ Transit bus stations

The renaming of the this category should only include the creation of a cat name which reflects what is contained within it. If there's going be a change, should be the right change, which at this stage is Category:NJ Transit rail stations Djflem (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "NJ Transit" vs "New Jersey Transit" is at issue—changing it to "NJ Transit" it is the primary purpose of this nomination. I suspect that what you might mean is that you are not concerned with that part of the nomination; ie, that you do not oppose making that change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As above, if there's going be a change, should be the right change, which at this stage is Category:NJ Transit rail stations Djflem (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's one option. See also my other suggestion, which would be to add any NJ Transit bus stations to the category. Would you prefer not to add the bus stations to the category for some reason? (I ask since other users above have supported doing that.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If so, eventually the category Category:NJ Transit train stations will need to be created and manually added to all the train stations included in the current cat. Any volunteers? Have started Category:NJ Transit bus stations.Djflem (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC) to which the current Category:New Jersey Transit stations has subsequently been added.Djflem (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- The abbreviation NJ will be obvious to many people, but not everyone. As a matter of policy, WP has discouraged the use of abbreviations in category names. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: "As a matter of policy WP has discouraged the use of abbreviations in category names"?? Where is this policy? I don't think such a policy exists, or even a guideline of that sort, let alone a policy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, NJ Transit is the brand name, so the policy regarding abbreviations doesn't count here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Marcocapelle. And common sense, as the article is at NJ Transit per COMMONNAME. oknazevad (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nom). During this discussion, Djflem created a populated Category:NJ Transit bus stations and Category:NJ Transit train stations as subcategories of the nominated Category:New Jersey Transit stations, which essentially renders my option (1) moot as far as this nomination goes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that this is the proper place for this discussion (getting really off topic of this seemingly simple CfD), but how does one define a "bus station"? I'd guess that almost every "train station" also serves buses...so should every train station also be categorized as a bus station? Or is a bus station a place that serves only buses and not trains? Not sure if this has been previously discussed, but it will likely need to be discussed (elsewhere). --Scott Alter (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I was hesitant to go down this path because of the issues you raise. I thought it would have been easier to just put them all in a generic "stations" category. It's weird that this nomination—which really only intended to turn "New Jersey" into "NJ"—has gotten so far off-track (har har har). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statewide transportation agency New Jersey Transit (NJT) operates railroad, light rail, and bus service, yet the fact is that the Category:New Jersey Transit stations was almost and now is exclusively populated with NJT railroad stations. So the suggestions of a name change that takes into account what is contained in the category was extremely appropriate or is what the category holds irrelevant to its name? That was the question, still unanswered, but null at this point. To properly categorize the NJT stations a different hierarchy needs to be applied than any examples offered here as to how rail service providers cats are organized, possibly:

Category:New Jersey Transit stations or Category:NJ Transit stations should be only a container category that should include:

• Category:NJ transit rail stations which includes
  • Category:NJ Transit train stations or Catgeory:NJ Tranist railroad stations
  • Category:Hudson-Bergen Light Rail stations‎
  • Category:Newark Light Rail stations‎
  • Category:River Line stations‎
  • Category:Proposed New Jersey Transit stations, which actually should be renamed Category:Proposed NJ Tranist rail stations
• Category:NJ Transit bus stations or Category:NJ Transit bus terminals
• Category:Transit hubs serving New Jersey

As mentioned, if you gonna do it do it right. So the question was what should the single listings (not categories) currently contained in Catgeory:New Jersey Transit stations be called and are their any volunteers to manually make the change to the items in it? Incidentally, Wikipedia's Bus station and bus stop explain a difference. While some NJT train stations service as NJT bus stations/terminals most do not & more often include bus stops.Djflem (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"if you gonna do it do it right". Yes, but sometimes it's helpful to do things in a step-wise process, rather than trying to bite it all off in one go. This proposed first step was to get the naming corrected. After that, it would have been relatively simple for you to make the changes you desire. Mixing the processes together has created a bit of a confused mess, with the result that the final result is going to take a lot longer to achieve. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I did not populate or categorize Category:NJ Transit train stations, two editors to this discussion did (which seems messy) Regarding the proposal, there were things to clarify, such as the use of the words rail, railroad, or train, given NJT operations.

• Propose renaming Category:New Jersey Transit stations to Category:NJ Transit stations
• Propose renaming Category:Proposed New Jersey Transit stations to Category:Proposed NJ Transit stations

With them this will be the result:

• The first of the above mentioned categories will include subcats and be populated with individual railroad stations (which would be the case with or w/o the name change, which I've made clear i support.)
• The second would be incorrect, and I oppose since it includes only railroad stations and light rail stations and not bus stations, and it would be better named something that reflects that, (with my preference for rail as the word which includes both light rail and railroad/train stations, as outlined in proposed hierarchy above)Djflem (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I did not populate or categorize Category:NJ Transit train stations". But you did create it. The distinction you draw between bus and rail stations is why I offered two alternatives for the renames. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem, no one is arguing with you or even opposing your suggestions for the stations hierarchy. I haven't seen any opposition at all to what you have raised. You're just complicating this seemingly simple CFD. What you have proposed makes sense, and can be done entirely separately from this CFD. The purpose of the original CFDS was simply to rename "New Jersey Transit" categories to "NJ Transit", to be congruent with the article NJ Transit. This CFD never should have been this complicated. If you think that the NJ Transit stations category requires a more detailed hierarchy, then go ahead and be bold: populate and categorize the bus/rail/train categories you already partially created. There probably should be a category for "Proposed NJ Transit stations", and if you want to make it a container category and further sub-categorize articles to "Proposed NJ Transit [bus|rail|train] stations", then go for it. --Scott Alter (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, creating Category:NJ Transit train stations did not cause a mess, populating with sub cats and categorizing it did. As is appropriate for a discussion of a name change, which is the ONLY discussion about how to properly address NJT stations, I have simply pointed out how both categories are flawed. I have responded within answered the narrow parameters on which you are focused (IMO to the detriment of the bigger picture). The first I support because the category name needs to be created (and then later fixed), and the 2nd I oppose because there is no need and none will arise to have Category:Proposed NJ Transit stations populated by only one subcat called Category:Proposed NJ Transit rail stations, Therefore suggest changing it to the latter directly. As mentioned the choice between the word rail is best since includes both proposed light rail and railroad stations, but no bus stations. Djflem (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "NJ Transit rail stations". The articles have long since been moved to "NJ Transit" and the category should reflect that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, hey @Djflem: this discussion is a good example of why it can sometimes be a bad idea to propose making multiple reforms within a single discussion rather than making one reform, implementing it, and then moving on to the next change that you think needs to happen. This nomination started out as a simple suggestion to change "New Jersey Transit" to "NJ Transit" in category names. Easy right?—should be a snap to complete it quickly. But now, because we've had all of these other supplemental proposals and debates, the original proposed change has been held up, and I imagine that this discussion looks quite daunting for administrators who might consider closing it. As a result, what should have been a quick change which could have been implemented in 48 hours has now been open for two months. Had we just made the initial change, we then could have started a nomination to deal with the supplemental issue. But instead, we have a messy discussion that is dragging on by remaining open, even though no users have made comments in the discussion for several weeks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt rename for the second nominated category to Category:Proposed NJ Transit rail stations. Note that this is my second vote. I also think we have a rough consensus in favor of the original nomination for the first category, and in favor of the alternative rename for the second category, but I agree with with editors above that this has been an unnecessarily confusing discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2016 (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: self-withdrawal to await the results of the article rename discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles County Metro Rail to Category:Metro Rail (Los Angeles County)
• Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles County Metro Rail lines to Category:Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) lines
• Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles County Metro Rail projects to Category:Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) projects
• Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles County Metro Rail stations to Category:Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) stations
• Propose renaming Category:Future Los Angeles County Metro Rail stations to Category:Future Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) stations
• Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles County Metro Rail stubs to Category:Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) stubs

Nominator's rationale: Some opposed speedies (see discussion copied below). I propose renaming these categories to match the main article Metro Rail (Los Angeles County). That the proposed names are "awkward" is subjective. Category names are not prose, and I find having the article name different than the article name to be more awkward, which also is subjective. Given that we essentially have opposing subjective views, it makes sense to go with the standard procedure, which is matching the category name to the article name per C2D. If the article name is ever changed by consensus to Los Angeles County Metro Rail, then the categories could follow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose series — @Good Olfactory: although it's clear for the parent Category:Metro Rail (Los Angeles County), it creates an awkward and unnecessary break in reading/comprehending child categories' names/foci. Clarity is the goal, not prose. Suggest/support renaming child cats to [Category:Metro Rail specific topic (Los Angeles County)] − e.g. Category:Metro Rail lines (Los Angeles County). Regards — Look2See1 t a l k → 03:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, whether or not it's "awkward" is completely subjective. I think it's awkward to have categories named in a format that differs from the standard. The problem with what you have proposed is that it goes against usual disambiguation practices on Wikipedia. In this case, the disambiguator is attaching to "Metro Rail", so it needs to follow "Metro Rail". We are not disambiguating the lines, the projects, the stations, or the stubs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Good Olfactory and Look2See1: Please note that I requested renaming the main article to Los Angeles Metro Rail. You're welcome to contribute to that discussion. While I generally support bringing categories into line with the main article's title, I'm asking you to put this CfD on hold until a consensus has been found on the main article's title. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PanchoS: thanks for your notice of the start of the article rename discussion. I think the best course might be to simply close this discussion while we await the result there. Depending on the results there, I can re-nominate. I'm always happy to defer to article discussions in C2D-esque discussions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 16 March 2016 (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. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Pacific Electric Railway to Category:Pacific Electric
• Propose renaming Category:Pacific Electric Railway templates to Category:Pacific Electric templates
• Propose renaming Category:Pacific Electric Railway succession templates to Category:Pacific Electric succession templates

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedies (see discussion copied below). I propose renaming these categories to match the main article Pacific Electric. The articles in the category that require disambiguation also use "(Pacific Electric)" as the disambiguator, not "(Pacific Electric Railway)": eg, Watts (Pacific Electric). The fact that one user is confused into thinking that Pacific Electric is about a utilities company is not a very compelling reason to name the category differently from the article. (In any case, that's why categories can have the template Template:Cat main or Template:Cat more at the top, so users can quickly click on the link and find out what the topic is all about.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — confusing, reads like an electric utility company name (e.g. Pacific Gas & Electric) instead of a public transit company name, and I rode on one of the last "Pacific Electric Red Car" runs so have a long familiarity. The Pacific Electric Railway Historical Society [1] refers to it as the Pacific Electric Railway, as does the book "Pacific Electric Railway: Then & Now" by LA based & respected Arcadia Publishing [2]. Support leaving the present category/template subcategory names and instead renaming the article to Pacific Electric Railway for congruity. Regards — Look2See1 t a l k → 06:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt a move of the article would be successful. It was recently discussed informally, but it looks like there was no consensus to change. Basically, it looks like "Pacific Electric Railway Company" was the official name, "Pacific Electric" was the branded and common name, and "Pacific Electric Railway" was hardly ever used. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Per WP:C2D to match the main article name. No objection to a speedy rename later if the main article is renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose The original article move had problems, and from what I can see was made without the possibility of discussion, though it's possible that there was some database glitch that lost all the WP:RM versions in January 2013 when the move was supposedly discussed. What should be happening here is that the move ought to reconsidered instead. Mangoe (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Mangoe if a RM process was carried out—a rename of the article was proposed, and there was no consensus to rename, would you then support the renames? Or is your opposition based on a substantive reason that these names are unacceptable? As I mentioned above, the article name was recently discussed informally, and it didn't look like a rename would be successful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't much of a discussion, both in terms of volume and in addressing the issue. A quick Google discloses that the relevant historical society prefers "Railway" and that there are a LOT of companies/businesses named "Pacific Electric". If people decided that, yes, this is the right name, then my opposition would be overridden in any case; but it seems to me that there is some basis for preferring the "railway" variant and that therefore the move needs to be formally reconsidered. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it wasn't a very extensive discussion and not one that would be determinative of anything; I just wanted to know whether your opinion was more process-based or substance-based so I can get an idea of where I might need to go from here. Thank you! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose but Category:Pacific Electric (railway) might be acceptable. Subcategories will probably not need to be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for now per nom and RevelationDirect, with no objection to a future rename of the article and a consequent (speedy) move back of the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Upmerging Category:Russian science fiction awards to all 3 parent categories
• Propose Upmerging Category:Israeli science fiction awards to all 3 parent categories

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT

I'm all for giving every country a category for awards and another for literature even though that results in a few small categories here and there. But here we're two layers further down and the vast majority of countries wouldn't have very many science fiction awards. (No objection to recreating either of these later though if they get up to around 5 articles.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Piotrus as the only active category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Science Fiction. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly caution against deleting the Russian category without input from Russian speakers. Category:Polish science fiction awards has three awards, and I would be very surprised if the Russian one would be smaller; the problem is more likely that nobody bothered stubbing them. Have you notified WP:RUSSIA? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the goal would be to get an editor to say there are other potential articles? If and when those are actually created, I'm all for recreating the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert at all, but I see on the Russian Wikipedia at least six categories (and more articles) related to Russian science fiction awards (no dedicated category though wich can be linked to the above category). Superficially, they seem to be notable by our standards; whether anybody would be up to actually creating the articles, I do not know.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is interest in expanding English Wikipedia's coverage on the Russian topic, I'd be happy to withdraw that one (partly because Sergey Lukyanenko is one my favorite writers). My point was that, as of today, it's not aiding navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom without prejudice against recreation if more article actually come into being.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in East Germany by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in East Germany by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There is only the 20th-century for establishments in East Germany (see Category:20th-century establishments in East Germany). For disestablishments, the 20th-century category directly merges into Category:Disestablishments in East Germany so the parallel can be done here. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ricky81682: No objection, but please co-nominate the equivalent Category:Establishments in West Germany by century, so we can discuss both of them at once. --PanchoS (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both. The present names are silly. It's a forest-for-the-trees example of pursuing on kind of consistency to the point of common-sense failure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I agree with the above. Neutrality^talk 15:44, 24 March 2016 (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.