Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 28



Category:Tunisia legislative election result templates

 * 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) 06:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Tunisia legislative election result templates to Category:Tunisian legislative election result templates
 * Nominator's rationale: per parent category Category:Tunisian election result templates PanchoS (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Per nom. Not a controversial renaming. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Per WP:C2D, bring category name in line with the templates in it. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.

Rome Metro station categories

 * 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) 06:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Line A stations to Category:Rome Metro Line A stations
 * Category:Line B stations to Category:Rome Metro Line B stations
 * Category:Line C stations to Category:Rome Metro Line C stations
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename all to SYSTEM Line FOO stations. There are several railway systems that use "Line A/B/C/etc." designations (see Line A, Line B and Line C for disambiguation specific to these three lines). Renaming these categories would disambiguate the category names and enable the other systems' stations to be similarly categorized. Slambo (Speak) 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support avoids ambiguity. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – Much clearer. The current names are far too ambiguous. oknazevad (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, per User:Redrose64 and User:Oknazevad for blatantly obvious reasons. I don't know why I'm not including the OP in this. -User:DanTD (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Odonyms

 * 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) 06:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose Merging Category:Odonyms to Category:Streets by type
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and KISS. I believe an "odonym" is the name for a specific street but this category is being used to categorize types of streets when we already have a separate category for that purpose. Also, the main article is a redirect and the word is unnecessarily obscure compared to the target category.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport. – RevelationDirect (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as roughly analogous. We wouldn't really have an article on a common street name that does not exhibit a certain type, as that probably wouldn't be notable. Thus, the type category should be able to contain all the possible contents. SFB 13:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator.  Rcsprinter123    (drone)  @ 13:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support -- Odonym (literally "way-name") is not a common word. An editor may have chosen it to avoid semantics over the differneces between a street, a road, a lane, and a way.  UK usage usually uses "street" for a road in a built up area, but I think thius is a case where US usage may be allowed to prevail worldwide, since there is no obvious comprehensive term available in UK, etc.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:American football running back, pre-1910 birth stubs

 * 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) 06:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:American football running back, pre-1910 birth stubs to Category:American football running back, pre-1900 birth stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: To represent what the category actually contains. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * support doing something but would it not be better to rename to Category:American football running back, 19th century birth stubs and create Category:American football running back, 20th century birth stubs for the existing by decade categories, it will save renaming the category again if the 1890s template gets deupmerged. Waacstats (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If we do this, it should be throughout the entire tree, not just here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support -- We have a 1900s category and each subsequent decade. We also have templates for several 19th century decades stubs, which which would seem to serve no useful purpose.  There has to be some point at which things like this stop and I would suggest that this is it.  I would oppose creating a 20th century parent cat: 1 pre-1900 category, potentially 10 20th-century ones and a couple of 21st-century ones (total 13) is not too much for one parent.  I would also encourage the deltion of the pre-1900 stub-templates as a wate of space.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Pine City, New York

 * 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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Pine City, New York
 * Propose merging Category:People from Pine City, New York into Category:People from Chemung County, New York
 * Nominator's rationale: this is a category page for a little town in upstate New York that is barely a stub of an article. Something really weird here. Quis separabit?  05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:SMALLCAT. I'd also be be open to expanding the nomination to merge Category:People from Pine City, New York into Category:People from Chemung County, New York. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per RevelationDirect -- A merge is generally preferable to deletion in such cases, as deletion loses useful data. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support merges' per RevelationDirect. This town is too small to support topical-navigation at this time. SFB 19:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Expanded Nomination to include sub-category, per growing consensus above. (, if I'm hijacking your nomination in a way you don't approve of, just let me know and I'll run it through as a separate nomination.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine, thanks. Quis separabit?  02:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge per above. kennethaw88 • talk 17:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.