Categories:G.A.A. All Star Awards winners by year (football)[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 all, but expand abbreviation in all. There is a great deal of precedent which supports the expansion of abbreviations in category names, regardless of the resulting length of the category name. This is not even a borderline case because the abbreviation in this case is ambiguous and its meaning is not widely known outside of a particular geographical area. That a category name is "too long" is also an entirely subjective standard on which to base a decision of what name to choose.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the current naming is too ambiguous. I think 'Gaelic Athletic Association' needs to be abbreviated however or the name would be too long (the supracategory page, Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football), spells the initialism out, so doing so for each of these listed here seems redundant). Mayumashu (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of like the dots - a bit of a traditionalist - but whichever is more in line with what the GAA uses itself (and I don t know which that would be). I am definitely in favour of renaming the hurling pages too, but won t do it myself for a few days anyway (tied up with school work) Mayumashu (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment[1] GAA not G.A.A. Gnevin (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but also agree hurling cats should also be moved if football ones moved. Also agree that GAA as opposed to G.A.A. should be used. Derry Boi (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand abbreviations -- If you are not Irish, you will not know what GAA stands for. Furthermore, is this not Gaelic football, not soccer; so should not that be made clear? Perhpas it is unnecessary, since the GAA objects to soccer as a "garrison sport". Peterkingiron (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the abbreviation must be expanded to Gaelic Athletic Association per long standing consensus and precedent. There is no prior support, that I know of, to only apply this to the parent category and not the sub categories. Likewise the length is not an issue when removing an abbreviation. This also means that there is no issue over using, or not using, the '.' in the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2008 (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.
Nominator's rationale: No reason for "Defense" to be capitalized, given English grammar. Everything in it should also be recategorized (I can do that with AWB, if needed). Octane (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename, but can I suggest Category:Anti-aircraft warfare to match the title of the parent article, and most of the items included in the category under discussion. I assumed that "Air defense]] had something to do with Anti-aircraft warfare, but its also a bit more ambiguous than the actual parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Anti-aircraft warfare per Alansohn. Not only does it match the key article, it also means that us UK English speakers don't wince every time we see the way defence has been spelt. :) Grutness...wha? 22:44, 5 December 2008 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename - to match the main article Televised sex line and correct the plural. Otto4711 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match title of parent article, with plural added. Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2008 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete We already have Category:Semitic peoples with 10 entries, this has only 4 one of which is the category itself dougweller (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, clearly redundant. I thought perhaps it might have been intended for "Semitic individuals", but that's not the case. Cgingold (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Semitic peoples as the properly-titled article, recognizing that there two articles in the category to be deleted that should be included in the correct category. Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, per all previous reasons. SamEV (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:SamEV is the category's creator. Cgingold (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying that though technically accurate per Wikiparlance, my role of "creator" is due to my being the first to edit it: by categorizing what was then an orphan category that I encountered by chance. I made no use of the category. SamEV (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom: these are clear duplicates. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2008 (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.
Rename to Category:Getty Foundation. Category:J. Paul Getty Trust, - (changed, as pointed out below, this is the top layer) since this is what the category actually covers - apart from the subcat, most of the articles cover other aspects of the Foundation's work (mostly physically located in the same places, but not in fact falling under the museum). Personally I think the article on the museum should be renamed per WP:COMMON anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could support this suggestion, see my comments below on original proposal. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't seem like a valid reason to me; the current name matches more of the articles contained in this category. Like Johnbod hints at, the problem could just as well be in the name of the article itself. It's name is not the result of any serious discussion of the proper name for the article under our naming conventions. Therefore, there is no reason to bootstrap the article's name into this categories name. Keep it simple, and you will keep the categories better populated. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:J. Paul Getty Trust. Johnbod has the right idea, but the Trust is the parent of the Getty museums, research institutes, and the foundation.-choster (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the nomination to reflect this target. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2008 (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.
