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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 6 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prussian locomotives to Category:Prussian state railways locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the collective name used to describe a collection of sub companies held by the Prussian governments. The main article is at Prussian state railways. This follows the form in Category:Locomotives by railway.Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as unnecessary. Otherwise we need to change all the Locomotives of Foo to Foo state railways locomotives for all "by country" locomotives. Locomotives of Prussia would be in line with the Wiki convention for "by country" locomotives.--Bermicourt (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either this category is a by country or by railway categroy. This may be an exception where it is both and since there is a main article, it should follow that name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Prussian state railways is a collective name for a number of state-run, but otherwise independent railway companies. Hence the lower case title. It can only be a "by country" category, unlike some of the other German state railway categories which could be argued either way (but as I have explained that would rule out private companies from that state being included). --Bermicourt (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 6 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Württemberg locomotives to Category:Royal Württemberg State Railways locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the name of the railway rather then the state they operated in. This follows the form in Category:Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This will exclude locomotives of private railways manufactured in Württemberg. Locomotives of Württemberg would be in line with the Wiki convention for "by country" locomotives. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is included in the by railway category. If there are more locomotives that should be included in a by country category, then that category can also be set up. By company and by country are two different category schemes and they should not normally have identical contents since there is normally more then one railway company. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 6 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Western Australian locomotives to Category:Western Australian Government Railways locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the name of the railway rather then the state they operated in. Some of the included articles are not clear as to what railway owned them, so one or two articles might need removing after the rename. I don't see a reason to categorize locomotives more finely then at the national level. No need to break down by state. This follows the form in Category:Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Keep separate -' WA Locomotives' is a very different range of locomotives - to that of the WAGR - and there are even disambig issues where class names are used for different locomotives in the two categories - as a consequence this move suggestion is not suitable.

A 'national level'(?) suggests a lack of knowledge of railway locomotive classification systems between states of australia, and internally within each state over time - and is problematic - this is a large state with different range of railways. The category locomotives by railway specifically has 'company' at its lead sentence/dsecriptor, and is not relevent to the australian context - the australian wikiproject has had some hair raising attempts at calling 'government railways' - 'companies', and conflating historical innaccuracies to have neat 'fixes' - this looks horribly like another attempt SatuSuro 14:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are basically saying that these are incorrectly classified under Category:Locomotives by railway? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - in the ideal case there should be WAGR locomotives as a sub category to WA locomotives, and not even considered as a subset or part of the of the alleged model category (ie the other way around to your proposal) - same for tasmania SatuSuro 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - that the two categories exist - and sufficient qualification in the criteria of the category so that there is no potential for mis-application of the categories SatuSuro 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 6 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tasmanian locomotives to Category:Tasmanian Government Railways locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to reflect the name of the railway rather then the state they operated in. Some of the included articles are not clear as to what railway owned them, so one or two articles might need removing after the rename. This follows the form in Category:Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per West Australian system - there were many separate and different railway companies and systems in tasmania - to claim that it is a TGR grab all and is ok - goes against the general nature of trying to get an accurate picture of Tasmanian rail history on wikipedia. Category:Locomotives by railway - if checked carefully in most cases was for specific railway companies - the Australian railway systems had originally government rail systems and private systems, and more recently have in most cases separate systems - so to change back to an outmoded government systems show no understanding of the history of the tasmanian railway system. SatuSuro 14:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the western Australian proposal above SatuSuro 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per SatuSuro. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - that the two categories exist - and sufficient qualification in the criteria of the category so that there is no potential for mis-application of the categories SatuSuro 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 6 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Saxon locomotives to Category:Royal Saxon State Railways locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This appears to be the proper name for the railway company. This follows the form in Category:Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This will exclude locomotives of private railways manufactured in Saxony. Locomotives of Saxony would be in line with the Wiki convention for "by country" locomotives. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is included in the by railway category. If there are more locomotives that should be included in a by country category, then that category can also be set up. By company and by country are two different category schemes and they should not normally have identical contents since there is normally more then one railway company. If you are going to claim that this is a by country category, then the by company category should be removed. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miracle on 34th Street ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category has at best minimal utility, and at this point has only one single article in any event. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This category indeed is unlikely to ever grow beyond this one article. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There have been other versions of the film but the original 1947 version is the only other one to have an article. There is no need for a category. Cjc13 (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without the likelihood of being expanded, this isn't going to be a useful category. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep separate and do not redirect one to the other (it was tempting to close this one-user discussion as "no consensus" just for amusement, but I think Vegaswikian's intentions are clear here). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Technology conventions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This popped up on my radar when an editor made it a redirect with the comment, duplicate category with Category:Technology conferences. The main articles are trade fair and business conference which are clearly different. So the question is do we delete the category as the redirect is proposing or do we keep both? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And no, these are not opposing opinions. Rather then override the action of the redirect, I felt that it should be discussed so I nominated it and have now expressed my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Promo singles by Rihanna to Category:Rihanna songs

Nominator's rationale: Promotional singles or not, articles in this category are still Category:Rihanna songs. No need for additional subcategorization. — ξ^xplicit 18:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not really familiar with the whole Wikipedia format but at the bottom of any Rihanna related articles, there is a text box comprising of all Rihanna's singles. Wait Your Turn is just hacked on after Hard despite Wait Your Turn not being an official single. I was trying to make an individual section for promo singles in that text bpx. Hope that makes sense!--RandomEnigma (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete – there isn't Category:Singles by artist (by agreement) so this should just be merged, per nom. Occuli (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per both editors above. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2009 DEC 28. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Autism in Arts to Category:Autism in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In line with naming of other similar categories under Category:Fiction by topic. GregorB (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While some adjustment of the name could be worthwhile, I don't think the answer is to limit it to fiction, as one of the 3 entries currently in the category is classed as autobiography rather than fiction. There is also scope for its wider use relative to outsider artists such as Alexander Lobanov which would be lost by the fictional closure. AllyD (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Marathi film singers to Category:Marathi playback singers

Nominator's rationale: To bring this in line with naming convention used by siblings under the parent Category:Indian_film_singers. See talk page of old category for details Mayuresh 13:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename — I don't quite understand why "playback" is used, but if it's good enough for all the others, it's good enough for this. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Socialist Unity Centre of India politicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist) politicians. party has changed name, see www.suci.in. Soman (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (target already exists). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Socialist Unity Centre of India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist). The party has recently changed name, see www.suci.in. Soman (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename; the mis-categorization problems can be dealt with manually. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Multi-sport competitions to Category:Multi-discipline sports

Nominator's rationale: Current name is totally off-kilter, and is resulting in the miscategorization of things. There needs to be a much clearer distinction between Category:Multi-sport events (for the Olympics, Asian Games, etc.) and the category for sports that are multi-disciplinary (biathlon, decathlon, etc.). The textual description at Category:Multi-sport competitions says it is that latter category, but its name certainly doesn't tell anyone that, and leads one to the opposite conclusion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: See it's talk page; this issue was actually raised in a complain there as far back as 2007. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if the contents really are sports and not competitions. Some of the current contents appear to be competitions and not sports, though. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-explanation: As the nomination clearly stated, some articles have been miscategorized, and a proper category already exists for them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 20. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cue sports tournaments ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded category redirect that will just cause article miscategorization; better for this to redlink than give a false positive bluelink. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Education in Madhya Pradesh --04:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Education in Khurai ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, Khurai is a small town and there's nothing that would be specific to the town, any article related to education in the town would be applicable to the state of Madhya Pradesh, covered in Category:Education in Madhya Pradesh -SpacemanSpiff 05:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The current and probably forever single article will do just fine in parent category, as nominator suggests. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator.Shyamsunder (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OCAT. Debresser (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Education in Madhya Pradesh: otherwise the one article will not be appropriately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete as the town is growing in its economic growth to expand to a city. Adarsh —Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 28. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1960s pop songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure I see the need for this intersection of the categories 1960s songs and Pop songs. Songs are typically categorized already by year and by artist, while the songs by artist category is a child to a by country, by genre category. It is excessively broad, and the recommended categorization under WP:SONGS#Categories seems sufficient. Also nominating the other pops songs by decade categories. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:1970s pop songs
• Category:1980s pop songs
• Category:1990s pop songs
• Category:2000s pop songs

• Delete – or rather upmerge to Category:1960s songs etc. (I assume they are all in Category:Pop songs via some subcat). I agree that WP:SONGS#Categories seems sufficient. Occuli (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Upmerging to Category:1960s songs seems to me to be a bad idea, because those categories are subdivided by year. Dumping a whole load of songs into an intermediate point in the category structure just leaves a big mess for someone else to clean up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Pop songs are very much creatures of their time, and it makes sense to me to group them by decade, because that's often how retrospective compilations are packaged. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but I am surprised that the nominator appears not to have notified WP:SONGS, where I'm sure that plenty of the editors have relevant expertise which would help reach a decision. I have just notified WP:SONGS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Many songs have been recorded with different arrangements in more than one style, and therefore this category is purely a subjective criteria and not objective. Therefore fails WP:NPOV. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This would overload the number of articles in Category:Pop songs. Also pop songs from different decades are like 'sub-genres' of pop. Adabow (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at CfD 2009 January 6 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Propose renaming Category:Sports coaches to Category:Sports coaches and instructors

Propose renaming its parent category Category:Sports instruction to Category:Sports coaching and instruction

Nominator's rationale: One subcat of Category:Sports coaches, and its subsubcats, already use "instructors", and a rename will also head off the creation of a competing and redundant Category:Sports instructors or Category:Sports coaching. The categories can always be split some time in the future if there evolves a huge pile of such articles and people feel that the distinction is important enough for category speciation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Modified to include two rename nominations and properly discuss them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Per coach (sport), coaches are for team sports. From what I see, instructors are for other types of activities, so combining these does not make sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Would you care to revise that statement? Here's a direct quotation (emphasis added) of the first line of the article you've cited: "In sports, a coach or manager is an individual involved in the direction, instruction and training of the operations of a sports team or of individual sportspeople." — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Which gets you to sports which states Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome (winning or losing),. So if I have an exercise instructor, how does that fit the above description? The meaning of coaches is clear and I don't agree that coaches and instructors are the same in normal usage. In some cases coaches might be more closely associated with an instructor. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "More closely" than what? Anwyay, I'm not following your reasoning, as you appear to be objecting on the basis that something in one of the categories is miscategorized. If it is, then why not just move it? As for your specific question, I don't see the issue anwyay. Virtually every athlete has an exercise/fitness instructor/trainer, under one title or another, and following that person's instruction is part of athletic training a.k.a. coaching. Thirdly, the article you mis-cited is a wretched stub (though not tagged as one at the time), flagged on both its face and its talk page as being competely biased toward US collegiate team sports, and inadquately sourced, so it is not a reliable indicator of much of anything to do with this category. Last, "not the same in any normal usage"? I am a pool instructor (a VNEA certified one). I tend to call myself a pool coach. No one to date has ever been confused between these two concepts so far as I can tell. E.g. no one has asked me "what team are you coaching?", nor wondered whether I like being a coach better than an instructor.

I think you personally have an internal definition of these words, that doesn't match actual usage. See Dictionary.com "coach", entries 5-7. The entry that applies to sports applies in the same way as the term applies to scholastics, music and acting, plus team sports. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further "evidence": Category:Sports coaches is a subcat of Category:Sports instruction. There are no Category:Sports coaching or Category:Sports instructors. The distinction you want to draw is not one that has been drawn at Wikpedia. - I'm adding a category to this nom, actually. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note second category added to nomination at this point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate proposal: Use Category:Sports coaches and trainers and Category:Sports coaching and training instead of "instructor" and "instruction" variants, if that will make anyone feel better. I don't care, really. The point is to indicate that the categories are not exclusive to a particular job title when the job is the same. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – in the UK Peter Coe was always described as the coach for his son Seb Coe (and he coached no-one else). Tennis players usually hire a coach. So I don't see that coach has any inherent connection with a team. Tiger Woods presumably has some sort of coach/trainer/instructor. Singers and actors have 'voice coaches'. I would be perfectly happy to use 'coaches' throughout, to include trainers/instructors (the distinction being, to me, hard to determine). Occuli (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with that, and why I've suggested either of two multi-term renames, is that it won't make it clear that the categories are for people in that line of work regardless what they're calling themselves and this will just lead to the redundant categories being recreated, since, well, they were already created once. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see merit to this proposal. The only reason I don't write down my full support is that I feel I am not knowledgable enough in sports. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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