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 (C2D). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Plays by William Gibson to Category:Plays by William Gibson (playwright)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. C2D, to match William Gibson (playwright). Trivialist (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• speedily rename per ref to correct main article. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gaelic Athletic Association competitions to Category:Gaelic games competitions

Nominator's rationale: Two versions of the same thing. There is no particular difference between GAA competitions and Gaelic games competitions. Gaelic games is probably the wider term referring to all sports and the GAA to the organisation (at least as this is expressed by Wikipedia at Gaelic games and Gaelic Athletic Association). Also, the GAA category contains Category:Camogie cup competitions (which would be organised by the Camogie Association) so the existence of two similar categories is excessive. 86.40.104.240 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom plus it's a snappier name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, because these are not two versions of the same thing. Category:Gaelic games competitions includes all such competitions, whereas Category:Gaelic Athletic Association competitions includes only those organised by the GAA. The effect of this nomination would be to remove these competitions organised by the GAA from Category:Gaelic Athletic Association, which would be a nonsense. The nominator had in fact removed that parent category before making this nomination, which is at best sneaky, and at worst disruptive. I have now restored it, and if the nominator has any justification for removing that category it would be good to hear it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per BHG --HighKing (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on same grounds. Brocach (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BHG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment BHGs reasons sound reasonable, and reflect the category structure I would expect to find, but after having learnt in recent times that 'all hurling is GAA hurling' I went looking for examples. The trees in question do appear to be largely duplicating most of the same articles, and the only non-GAA articles I have yet found in Category:Gaelic games competitions are Camogie events like Ashbourne Cup organised by the Camogie Association which neither the article or website for seem to indicate is part of the GAA. Yet, these are in the Category:Gaelic Athletic Association competitions tree anyway. Is this just a matter of Camogie being badly categorised, or something else I am missing? --Qetuth (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Camogie Association and Ladies' Gaelic Football Association are interesting .They can be considered an independent sub-bodies of the GAA but I'm sure if you asked they would say they are not sub-bodies and to throw a other spanner in the works you have GAA Handball . On a practical level you have GAA clubs who will cater for all Gaelic Games . So to answer your question they kinda are GAA and kinda aren't Gnevin (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up... I think IP has identified a problem - these categories are in practice being used as duplicates, but it sounds like careful cleaning and rescoping is a better answer than a straight merge (ie, is there some objective criterion such as 'officially endorsed' that can be used for the GAA category?). Or perhaps many of the subcats of the non-GAA category should be downmerged into the GAA one. --Qetuth (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more nuanced solution and more correct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- BHG's logic is irrefutable. The GAA category should be a sub-cat of the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete per WP:OC#SMALL, and per Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing_redirect_pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:VDM Publishing writer names ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#SMALL. Category only contains two redirects. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose re-naming : Category:New York hurlers to Category:New York GAA hurlers

Nominator's rationale I debated with myself about whether to introduce this proposal to CFD. I was originally going to leave it at just Ireland. That can now be regularised at other discussions (assuming that they pass). However, when I looked into the GAA County of New York GAA, I realised that this too was necessary. I saw that it only contains 4 articles, none is which is a person born or from New York city or state; all are from Ireland. However, each has played for the GAA governing body called the "New York County Board" (in GAA logic, New York is a county. Don't even ask.). That there is a need for disambiguation is accented by the incorrect inclusion of the parent category Category:Sportspeople from New York. Other members of that category cater explicitly for people from the city or state (e.g. Category:Golfers from New York, Category:Tennis people from New York, Category:Kickboxers from New York). So this is the exception. It seeks to give the false impression that it is about people from the city or state. To disabuse people of that notion, the GAA suffix is necessary. Per the precedent of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers held at here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this proposal: From Brendan Hennessy: "Hennessy spent most of his playing days in New York where he played in a number of National Hurling League finals in the 1950s until the 70's." I don't think he could be said to not be from New York if he spent most of his playing days there. If you trace back far enough most people from New York would be found to be from elsewhere. At which point would it be appropriate to refer to someone as a New Yorker and not Italian or Irish or whichever? As hurling in New York goes there doesn't appear to be any scope for confusion. They don't fly over and back every time they want to play and train, they live there if they play, they work there, etc. It is their life. It is not as if there are hurlers who could lay any greater claim to being from New York. --86.40.104.240 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not said that they don't play there. Quite the opposite. What I have said is that they are not from there. If Brendan Hennessy was asked in Clancy's Bar, East 44th Street, "Where are you from?", would he be more likely to say Kerry or New York? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose without prejudice to a future renaming request. I'd prefer to put all these discussions on hold and deal with the centrally rather than one at a time, all touching on roughly the same subject matter. --HighKing (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply NY, NY is a special case. It's not a county as generaly understood. It's extra-territorial and so deserves special consideration. And what do you think that Brendan Hennessy might say in that bar? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This comment makes no easy sense at all. Are you refering to New York, New York, or are you just being repetative in speach?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the reasons set out at the many other places where Laurel Lodged has proposed, or unilaterally carried out, unnecessary renamings of GAA articles and categories, e.g. here, here, here, here... Brocach (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply all of which were rejected at the Tipperary precedent. And what do you think that Brendan Hennessy might say in that bar? I ask the question here because if I ask it at your talk page it's likely to be deleted as soon as it's read. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is now the fourth such nomination made by this nominator, and two others are still open, where they are hotly contested. (see CfD Jan 26 and CfD Jan 17).
  As per my comments in those discussions, this is an unneeded disambiguation. And in this case the nominator is factually wrong in his premise. The nom says of the parent Category:Sportspeople from New York that "other members of that category cater explicitly for people from the city (e.g. Category:Golfers from New York, Category:Tennis people from New York, Category:Kickboxers from New York". On the contrary:

1. Category:Golfers from New York is a subcat of Category:American golfers by state
2. Category:Tennis people from New York is a subcat of Category:American tennis people by state
3. Category:Kickboxers from New York is a subcat of Category:American kickboxers by state

Since the nomination is based on a false premise, I hope that the nominator will withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to BHG for kindly pointing out the omission from the nomination. The nomination has been amended to include the state also. New York, New York - so good I had to do it twice. Apologies for the inconvenience that this oversight may have caused. As the premise is now true, I look forward to her amending her vote. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LL, please do a little research of your own rather than simply giving a snarky reply based on your continued failure to check what you are talking about. It's tedious enough that you did not do so before making the nomination, but it is disruptive time-wasting for you to continue to do it after your error has been pointed out to you. The premise is still false.

New York is a state, and the article on the city is at New York City. The category system retains this naming format, so we have for example Category:Sports in New York (for the state) and Category:Sports in New York City (for the city). So Category:Sportspeople from New York refers to the whole state, not just the city ... so the scope is therefore correct.

People who have play for New York GAA are not teleported from Kerry for the evening to play a match; they play for New York GAA because they live there (e.g. Brendan Hennessy lived in NY for at least 20 years). As such this categ is correctly included in the parent category Category:Sportspeople from New York, to ensure that this category includes people who played for NY teams. A parallel can be found in Category:Columbia Lions tennis players, which is a subcat of Category:Tennis people from New York. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that the only snarky remarks in this debate have come from the opposing side. But let us us pass on in the interests of peace. To the substantive objection. BHG says "So Category:Sportspeople from New York refers to the whole state, not just the city ... so the scope is therefore correct.". This is not in dispute, especially since the amended nomination now includes both city and state. What I fail to understand is how this justifies an "oppose" vote. Rather it points to the conclusion that the articles it contains refers to people from that state. Since this is demonstrably not true in the case of the New York GAA hurlers, how is it justifiable to include them? Had the category been named "Sportspeople from New York or who may have visited the state or who may have been an illegal immigrant there at some time", I'd understand the oppose vote. But is is not so named and a reasonable person would not so construe it. As the scope of "New York hulers" (and virtually every other "Foo county hurlers" cat) is "people who have played hurling for New York GAA", then it is only intended to contain people who play for that county board. It is silent about their birthplace / residence / or use of Star Trek teleportation devices. This is as it should be. If BHG wants to create a category for people who have lived in New York at some time and who happen to play hurling either in New York or elsewhere, she is perfectly entitled to do so. But this is not that category. And the proposed suffix of "GAA" would make that exclusion patently obvious. Why anyone would want to reject the patently obvious, when even expert editors like BHG make errors on the subject, is frankly beyond my ken. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for reasons at other hurlers discussions, plus in the case of New York not all hurlers were even connected with the GAA.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Why do we need 8 discussions on this issue ? Gnevin (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question The more I learn about hurling, the more confusing it seems to become. Is the intended scope meant to be the state, the county, their union, their intersection, or something else? The cat desc, both the long-standing original and LLs update, indicate county, but BHG is arguing here for state. Following the links to see what the category currently claims should be included, indicates an area that stretches well out of the state (Category:Sportspeople from Connecticut as well maybe?), and checking the actual articles finds half of them make no mention of ever playing in, or for, New York, save their presence in this category. Nor does it appear to be supported by their references (those that aren't dead, anyway). --Qetuth (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Another ridiculous proposed change. Finnegas (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons set out in the 3 other duplicate nominations. Snappy (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion of GAA category/article naming conventions here. Brocach (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:United Kingdom rail transport magazines, to match the sister categories. If the Jan 28 CfD on the sister categories reaches a consensus to change to the "Rail transport magazines of Foo" format, this one can be speedied to match. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:British rail transport magazines to Category:Category:Rail transport magazines of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Rail transport magazines of the United Kingdom or similar. As it is, it sounds too much like "Transport magazines of British Rail". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point, I approve. This didn't occur to me when I created the category. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, for the reasons given. Going to nominate the other subcategories accordingly, as well. (Discussion.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename to Category:United Kingdom rail transport magazines to maintain consistency with Category:Rail transport magazines. Tim! (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United Kingdom rail transport magazines to match sister cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge as redundant. WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:United Kingdom Gospel singers to Category:British gospel singers

Nominator's rationale: both categories appear to have the same criteria for inclusion--71.167.157.25 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge Tim! (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename (C2C). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bestsellers to Category:Lists of bestsellers

Nominator's rationale: Removing ambiguity, so that individual books etc. won't be erroneously added to the category. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom Mangoe (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename since the category is meant to hold lists and not things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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