Category:University and college rugby football clubs[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: The title misuses "rugby football" when it should say "rugby union" - there are two sports called rugby and it is Wikipedia policy to refer to them by their official names "rugby union" and "rugby league". I also would like "club" changed to "team" as it is more consistant with the rest of the rugby union categories. GordyB (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain football, as changing the name would mean creating a separate category for rugby league clubs, which seems a bit overkill.
Retain clubs as well, as only one entry in the category calls itself 'team', and many clubs will have multiple teams within them. Johnhousefriday (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rugby league is an entirely different sport from rugby union and has its own category in every single instance - there are no shared "rugby" categories - I put them up for deletion and one by one they were all voted into oblivion; I'm not too bothered about club vs team but having one undifferentiated category for the two sports would be a major anomally.GordyB (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, also no real opinion about club & team, but definitely separate sports and the category should be split.--Bcp67 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but retain clubs. The two seperate sports have to be split or some people with little knowledge of either sport may get confused. DeMoN2009 10:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support retain club but remove football. Split into league and union, the two are different sports. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestCategory:University and college rugby union clubs. Most universities are likely to have their rugby origanised as a club, run by a student committee. This may field several teams, playing each other or other universities. "union" should appear, though I suspect that few universities in fact field "league" teams. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Quite a few universities do have league teams, including Oxford and Cambridge, but they aren't nearly as established as union ones.GordyB (talk) 13:51, 1 February 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.
Category:Monuments and memorials in the Sweden[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Sweden does not come with a "the". Tomas e (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – indeed Sweden does not come with a "the". Occuli (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. When I was growing up, neither did OC.-choster (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it IS "the Sweden" now... What's the last time you checked?? (And let's not forget that Ukraine jettisoned it's "the" a while back. It must have gone somewhere... Perhaps we have the answer!) Cgingold (talk) 10:48, 31 January 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.
Category:Members of the North Carolina State House[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. That's its real name. It doesn't call itself the "State House." —Markles 13:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator: I can't say for certain what I was thinking 3 1/2 years ago, but I think why I named it that way was because this legislative body changed names from the House of Commons to the House of Representatives, and the category was intended to include both. Postdlf (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match parent article North Carolina House of Representatives. I'm pretty sure I would have remembered if it was called the "North Carolina House of Commons". Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
? It was called the North Carolina House of Commons until 1868, according to its article. Postdlf (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't 3 1/2 years ago. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we had articles 3 1/2 years ago for individuals who were members of the pre-1868 legislative body termed the "North Carolina House of Commons," such that "members of the North Carolina House of Representatives" would technically not include them. That's all. Perhaps no one else will care about the different names as there was clearly a continuity, but I just wanted to raise that issue. Postdlf (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Kbdank71 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partly support: I support renaming the category "Tyrol" to "Tyrol (state)" to distinguish it from "Tyrol (region)", but I'm against the renaming of the latter for the same reasons expressed by Gun Powder, chiefly because the Tyrol still exists in a form or another.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tyrol is still a very alive entity: i.e. South Tyrol and Tyrol co-finance the university of Innsbruck as both the Italian province and the Austrian state see it as the Tiroler Landesuniversität (University of (the land of) Tyrol) or another example: the hospital in Innsbruck is the Landeskrankenhaus Tirol (Hospital of (the land of) Tyrol), which is also co-financed by the province and the state. Furthermore: every year there is a common Landesaustellung (the biggest historical exhibition each year) organized, financed and shown in both parts of Tyrol and the list goes on and on and on... from trains operated together, to marketing together, to the Orders given out jointly by the two parts of Tyrol (i.e. Verdienstmedaille des Landes Tirol awarded to citizens of Tyrol regardless of North, South or East by the presidents of the two entities every year on August 15th) so Tyrol is a very active entity; therefore Category:Tyrol needs to stay. --noclador (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As already pointed out, with Tyrol (state) and Category:Tyrol (region) undisputedly existing, it is only logical to keep a Category:Tyrol, within which the other two then serve as subcategories. If we create a new Category:Tyrol (state), however, we will also have to move the Category:South Tyrol (not Province of Bolzano-Bozen) to Category:Tyrol. Then we would cover the two states of Tyrol and also the region under the heading of Tyrol. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:45, 2 February 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 per other CFD's and DRV and Burma. Kbdank71 15:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Without wanting to again re-ignite the never-ending "Burma" vs. "Myanmar" naming war, suffice it to say that right now the main article is Burma, the main category is Category:Burma, and the vast majority of the subcategories use "Burma". Maybe "Myanmar" would be better—I'm sure someone has reasons that it would be—but until the article and main category change to "Myanmar" there's little point in having subcategories that are differently named. There is precedent for changing "Myanmar" to "Burma" in category names: here; here (endorsed by DRV here); and here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per rest of category. As a side-note, the name "Myannmar" is even widely contested within Burma. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:15, 31 January 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.
Category:Members of the Greater Buffalo Sports Hall of Fame[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 15:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by minor award reception. A WP article about the Greater Buffalo Sports Hall of Fame does not yet exist. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gotta be dozens if not hundreds of these... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 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. Kbdank71 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: it is not part of the established schema for expat footballers to cat by continent. (An equivalent page for Japanese footballers was merged a year to two ago.) Mayumashu (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as current categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Kbdank71 15:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcatting, and vague. The Shriners is not the same type of Masonic organization as the Masonic University, and there are many incorrect additions, such as CHIP and the Shrine Circus. Stijn has a habit of making cats and throwing random things in them, and he has done it again here. MSJapan (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with MSJ's nom. The cat is overly vague, and inaccurately used. I am not even sure if you can call the Shriners a "Masonic" organization (The Shrine is an independant organization, although they require you to be a Mason to join), and the Shrine Circus is a step beyond that (being an independant organization supported by the Shrine). CHIP is not even an orgainization (The acronym CHIP stands for Child ID Program). Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Nothing vague about this category at all. This is a good category for the purposes of categories: navigation to articles. The aritcles are not being deleted in mass and neither are the subcats of this cat nor its parent, so this category serves a valid purpose. 'Organizations' is a regular term used in WP for grouping--guess what--organizations. Hmains (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my post again... not all of the articles listed are organizations... and of those that are, there is some debate as to whether you should call others "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... Category:Fraternal orders would be ideal. I would not use cat:Secret societies, as in modern language it has implications of conspiracy that do not always apply. Blueboar (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- but prune out the non-Masonic bodies. I would have thought that it should be possible to define the present category by whether they have a direct link with the Grand Lodge, or soemthing of that sort. I am not sure whether Category:Fraternal orders is the right name, but I do not know. The surviving friendly societies on UK are more like insurance mutuals, than anything else, but that is the result of the welfare state which has taken away the need for their original function of providing for unemployed or sick members. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 15:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Part of a recurrent overcatting problem in the Freemasonry cat created by User:Stijn Calle. In this case, there are four pages listed as "degrees", and they're really part of other Masonic Rites and bodies, which we already have cats for. MSJapan (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree that Stijn's categorization attempts demonstrate a lack of understanding of the structure of Freemasonry and its degrees and bodies. Two of the four article topics listed in this cat Knight Kadosh and Holy Royal Arch can be considered "Masonic Degrees" (although actually they are degrees within seperate "appendant bodies" that require you to be a Freemason before you can join... Knight Kadosh is given by the Scottish Rite, and Holy Royal Arch is given by the York Rite). If the broader Category:Masonic Rites is deemed insufficent, I would create sub-cats(Category:York Rite and Category:Scottish Rite) for articles on the degrees within these Rites. As for the Allied Masonic Degrees... dispite it's name, AMD is actually an organization (again requiring you to be a Freemason to join), which itself offers several degrees. It's not a Masonic degree itself. As for the fourth article, Perfect Master, I am not sure that it really should not be placed in any of the Freemasonry cats. That a degree called Perfect Master is offered by the Scottish Rite is almost mentioned in passing, and in just one small paragraph of a much larger article. The bulk of the article has nothing to do with Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be one category which contains all rites AND degrees, because these are totally interconnected. They certainly do not belong in the main category, freemasonry. --Stijn Calle (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Stijn states that these four articles do not belong in the main Category:Freemasonry category... I have to ask why not... why do they need their own category? The main Freemasonry is very small (only 28 articles listed), so it isn't as if the four articles under discussion are clogging things up, or making navigation difficult. Until we are talking about more than four articles, I think sub-cating is overkill. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Blueboar. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 30 January 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.
Category:National Film Board of Canada productions[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 15:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A little repetitive, I know, but as this category contains both productions (100% NFB) and co-productions, I believe a rename is preferable, to bring it into line with the other categories in the Category:Films by studio master cat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. (And what films they truly are! Who can forget The Romance of Transportation in Canada? Classicly hilarious, even to fifth-graders watching it on filmstrip when the substitute teacher is too lazy to teach.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:32, 3 February 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.
