Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Comment Hmm. Kipling would have been surprised to find he'd written a franchise. He wrote a follow-up volume, at least one other story, & re-mixed compilations. The current title is not clear enough, but the nom seems somewhat wide of the mark. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It's mixing the books in with the subsequent movies, video games, etc. of the same name, which is not exactly a natural collection, apart from the fact that they are all "based on" (and I use the term loosely) the original work. It's not the nomination that is wide of the mark, it's the existence of the category in the first place. Good Ol’factory03:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. Sorry, but I don't understand your original point, I guess. I've never suggested that it be deleted, just renamed. I thought you were implying it's a dubious category and should maybe be deleted. Good Ol’factory03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Created today by User:Apoc2400 as something that he considers "usefull". IMHO all categories he has tagged are part of a relevant category tree already, and I see no practical purpose in the creation of this category. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep. This seems to me to be a rather good idea, although the name might be better. I can't thing of a better name right now, but this one seems both too verbose and too similar to Articles for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
We could add PRODs and speedies there. Although they are not really for discussion. This problem is caused by one of the renames of WAS (if anybody remembers him). Debresser (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment For me this is the only compelling reason to re-name. However consistency with what? Rugby union's categorisation only? Or across the board? For that we'd have to rename others like Category:English footballers and Category:Gaelic footballers as well. You can be sure that athletes in these categories would be widely referred to as 'players' too. Where do we draw the line?--Jeff79 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment There is a general move towards categories being named in a consistant way across Misplaced Pages and it makes (to me) to use the more general "player" which can be used with most sports (if not all) rather than footballer which is specific to a few and as I'm told not used in American English. Though I agree with the points further down that "footballer" is not an archaic term and not restricted to Australia. It is just that the British media prefers not to use the term to avoid confusion with soccer. Rugby league media in the UK certainly does talk about "football" and "footballer".GordyB (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment - that nomination discussion ended with two for naming the subcategories footballer and three opposed. There was no consensus to change the status quo at that time but it was not a strong enough result to decide this discussion in my opinion. LunarLander // talk // 20:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Rugby league football is one of many codes of football and the people who participate may be correctly categorised as footballers. In Australia which is currently (though hopefully not for too long!) at the forefront of the sport, the game is pre-eminent in its heartlands, the terms football and footballer are in common usage. Those terms are also in heavy usage among those in the professional game in the UK, especially coaches - those who most commonly appear in by the media and so perpetuate the term. I would also add that a common name the sport, 'rugby league', can be an ambiguous term for those unfamiliar with the it and the word 'footballer' I think is more useful in highlighting that this is a sport rather than a rugby competition. LunarLander // talk // 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Reply LunarLander's assertions didn't tally with my own (very limited) knowledge of the terminology, so I did some checking. Here's the figures, all linked to the searches so that you can check them out for yourself:
It seems to me that "rugby league footballer" is even less common as a term in Australia than it is in the UK. So I checked out the terminology on a few UK news websites:
Reply - I think it is probably impossible to use ghits to provide an answer to this particular question (and I should note that the level of coverage given to the sport by the UK print media is not exactly extensive). Rugby league is a sport with various terms used in several places so it's a bit hard to pin down these things properly.
I also think the terms you have searched for don't well reflect how rugby league would be written about. There aren't too many situations I can imagine a long-form "rugby league footballer" being used when "footballer" or, yes, "player" would do - the sport wouldn't need to be referenced again after the title or section name, for example.
Looking at Australia in particular, the terms "NRL", "rugby league", "league", "football", "rugby" might be used when referring to the sport or the main competition within it.
Here are some other google hit stats with an alternative choice of terms used but, as I've noted, I don't think you can put any particular trust in them:
Unfortunately, perhaps as someone that isn't a rugby league fan you might not have been exposed to televised match commentary and the associated analysis and interviews meaning you can't gain a full appreciation of the prevalence of terms, and unfortunately these aren't as readily pulled up as Google hits. LunarLander // talk // 23:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Several points here. First, it's not a good idea to base theze decisions on anyone's personal impressions; it's better to use verifiable sources. Secondly, you're right that UK print media don't give much coverage to rugby league, and that's why I didn't just use the national media, I looked at the Manchester Evening News. It's coverage of RL appears to exceed the combined total of the national broadsheets, which is unsurprising since its distribution area includes some of rugby league's Pennines heartland. And the results from there are all for "players" rather than "footballers". Thirdly, your searches all show more hits for "players" than for "footballers", except for the search which looks for two words rather than the phrase (and even it shows only a small majority for footballers). Those results could be misleading, because there's no guarantee that the word "footballers" relates to NRL; it could be picking up sports roundup article in which the term "footballers" refers to other sports. That's why I searched for phrases, and why I think that your searches for phrases are more meaningful. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Reply - It's preferable to use verifiable sources but I (and nobody else in this discussion) has access to the BBC or Sky archives. Someone's impression might not be ideal but it isn't right to rule out broadcast media. On searches, yes phrases are more accurate but only in relation to that phrase, not overall usage of the term we are interested in. Here are some sources with footballers used. They prove at a minimum that the term is in use today by commentators, coaches and others: UK media - 9th July 2009 - Rhinos to rampage on - SkySports.com UK media - 28th August 2007 - Fred Hopkin - J Bruce Ismay - Liverpool Echo (a city with two Premier League teams) UK media - 9th January 2009 - Dancing On Ice: Ellery Hanley - Top 10 facts you need to know about the former rugby player - The Mirror UK media - 22nd June 1998 - Brassed off but still unbowed - The Independent (Arts section) UK club - Current page in community section - RL Key Skills - Wakefield Wildcats UK company - 11th May 2009 - Sports bar manufacturer in Super Sponsorship with Rooney - Focused Nutrition UK club - 22nd August 2009 - Whitehead commits to Bulls - Super League Quote from Steve McNamara UK media - Jim Challinor - Liverpool Echo UK media - Len Killeen & Doug Laughton - Liverpool Echo UK company (Alibris) - Book about the State of Origin with a synopsis saying "footballers" - Alibris UKLunarLander // talk // 16:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Reply I don't think there is any dispute that the term is in use. However, the issue is prevalence. The Daily Mirror story to which you linked is an interesting example. The headline says "rugby player" and the body of the article uses "rugby league footballer" once and "rugby league player" once. Just looking for single words, "footballer" appears once, but "player" or "player" appears 6 times. Looks to me like the mirror pefers "player". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment - The nominator's rationale in the rugby union discussion was that 'footballer' was an archaic term in rugby union, please justify why you think it is archaic in the sport of rugby league. Rugby union generally makes a big thing of calling itself just 'rugby', whereas rugby league uses several names and the use of 'football' and 'footballer' is contemporary and higher. LunarLander // talk // 00:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Naturally people don't refer to them as "rugby league footballers" or "NRL footballers" because they are already writing/speaking in the context of the sport and refer to them simply as "footballers". I'm not sure if there's a way to search google results for "footballer" within a rugby league context or not. But here is a small sample of the multitude of occurences of the use of "footballer" in reference to rugby league players in written media. In addition to this you will hear the term spoken by commentators in any given match broadcast or television/radio talk show. This is because (in Australia at least) rugby league became the predominant meaning of the word 'football', just as soccer did in England and American football did in the US. Certainly 'player' is common, but so too is 'footballer'. I support retaining use of "footballer" as not only is it in common, widespread usage, but it communicates more than "player". The rugby union wikipedians seemed to agree the term was archaic for their sport. However that is simply not the case for this one.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
rename. It's fairly evident to me after reading this conversation that "footballer" is exclusively an Australian term for rugby league player. Since this is an international encyclopedia and the categories cover players in places other than Australia, it makes sense to rename to a more generic and commonly used term. Good Ol’factory07:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment - No, I don't think it is limited to Austrlia considering there is a book called Billy Boston: Rugby League Footballer that was published by London League Publications Ltd released on 27 August 2009--sss333 (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment "Footballer" is neither exclusively Australian, nor is it only used for rugby league players. See the examples provided above. Australian rules football players are also referred to as footballers in Australia. As are Gaelic footballers and soccer players in their respective countries (and their categories have been allowed to reflect this).--Jeff79 (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You've both misinterpreted what I've said, probably because I didn't express myself clearly. Let me clarify: it appears to me that only Australians use "footballer" as the preferred form of a rugby league player. (It's not even clear to me if it's the preferred form in Australia, though because I don't care to argue about it I could concede that it may well be.) This is nothing to do with what other sports use. Anyone can cherry pick a usage or two from any country, but that's kind of irrelevant. What is important is which form is dominant worldwide. The ghits are fairly conclusive in this regard, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory08:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Do some usages count for more than others? For example, the Australian Dictionary of Biography chooses to use the term "rugby league footballer" (probably because it is more intrinsically accurate and informative than "player"). An example was provided above where the term was preferred for the title of a published book. And here a medical journal. Personally I agree with them and think Misplaced Pages should do the same as it is after all an encyclopedia.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Not in my opinion. Anyone can find individual examples of the usage they prefer, and there's no reason they should carry more weight. That's why I support the more generic usage—it seems to have a much wider usage. It's predicable that Australian users would disagree, since it's not what they're used to, but it seems to be a mostly regional term, at best. Good Ol’factory09:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that the Australian Online Dictionary of Biography's wording should be preferred because it's Australian, but rather because it is more encyclopedic than others. And the other two examples (found in only a matter of minutes) I mentioned are neither Australian nor specialised (their intended audience being people interested in British rugby league or medical professionals worldwide). I'm trying to illustrate that common usage should not be the be all and end all for deciding terminology on wikipedia, just as it isn't for any other reliable encyclopedia or reputable publication. "Rugby league footballer" is to "rugby league player" what "Avian influenza" is to "bird flu".--Jeff79 (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment - WP:COMMONNAME is a policy on naming articles. This is a discussion about category naming, please link to any sections in Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories) or related conventions that deal with common names for categories. You are making out that footballer isn't a common name, it is common enough to satisfy the naming of a category. LunarLander // talk // 15:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME states: Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article. After dealing with search engine results it goes on to say: It may also be useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. It is for this reason that the "bird flu" (3.6M ghits) article is entitled "Avian influenza" (1.7M ghits).--Jeff79 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Isn't that the bone of contention though? Neither term is significantly prevalent to the other, indeed both are used interchangeably seemingly without any criteria. I'm not totally sure, but I'm willing to bet if I used my student Athens account on Web of Science, I wouldn't find many scientific studies in journals on rugby league, definitely not any consensus on whether 'player' or 'footballer' should be used. In my opinion, there is no evidence to suggest the category needs changing, and no consensus on what to change the category to. Unless it's to maintain consistency throughout the encyclopaedia, I say leave it alone. GW(talk)22:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Support: Sportspeople are generally referred to as 'players' - I agree. I agree that all rugby league categories should use the same term. I also follow the recent trend towards standardising categories on Misplaced Pages, so I fully support your agenda. GW(talk)00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: ...but the question above is still pertinent. For this to be worthwhile to Misplaced Pages, this needs to be done with all codes of football. GW(talk)00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, unnecessary intersection with nationality. There are only 9 articles in Category:Disbarred lawyers, only five of which are for non-American lawyers who were disbarred, so there is simply no reason to divide these by nationality. Doing so furthermore segregates these lawyers from the broader nationality lawyer categories. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment I am always in doubt about this kind of thing. Is it worth while to create/maintain a national subcategory? If there are many of them, then even if one specific subcategory is almost empty, you can always defend it by saying that it is part of a structure. But when it is the only one, as often happens especially with "American whatever" subcategories, should we keep it as the possible beginning of a structure, or not? I tend towards deletion in such cases, like postdlf in this case, but the question is a general one. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Small categories that are part of a larger structure are fine, where many countries have many articles, but some may have very few. But here there are only enough articles to substantially populate one such category, and the absolute number of articles is not large either (we should even check to see if any should be removed, as the category description used to include mere suspensions of licenses, which is not the same as disbarment and so shouldn't be done through this category). Another issue to consider regarding when it is worthwhile to maintain a national subcategory is whether it will effectively be a triple intersection (Americans who are lawyers who were disbarred) that would only partially subdivide an occupation category. Here, there are no complementary categories for this category that would cover other lawyers with the same specificity (nondisbarred lawyers? sheesh). Creating too many junction categories fragments the category structure and reduces the avenues of navigation. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep as a defining characteristic that should be grouped using the category system. The corresponding parent article at List of disbarments in the United States includes more than two dozen disbarred American attorneys which will make the task of expanding this category rather trivial. Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Reply. Being a disbarred lawyer is a defining characteristic. Being American is a defining characteristic. However, this category is an intersection between the two, and upmerging it will not lose any defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Reply As best as I can tell, the category has 56 articles so far. By what definition is that a "modest size" that justifies deletion of this category? Given that different countries have their own unique legal systems why shouldn't we expect that other nations will have corresponding lists of their own disbarred lawyers that have not been added due to systemic bias? Why would we not want to associate American disbarred lawyers with the obvious parent Category:American lawyers instead of dispersing it into a global parent of Category:Lawyers? Sure, the entries are still there but we've lost the defining intersection. P.S. Will this be the subject of another attempt by Postdlf to manufacture some sort of controversy, as has become his custom? Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The reasons for which lawyers can be disbarred are broadly similar in most developed countries, so I don't see why any particular nationality is defining. The merged category will have less than 70 articles, which doesn't cause navigational problems. If systemic bias problems are resolved and lots more articles are created, then we can look at splitting the category again, and this can be easily done using catscan to find the intersections ... but I'm not holding my breath for the demise of systemic bias, and we need to organise categories on the basis of those articles which actually exist or which might reasonably expect to be created soon, not on the basis of what we might wish. PS What useful purpose is served by sniping at someone for comments which have not been made? I don't see how that helps reach a decision here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Propose disambiguating; the film franchise includes films, video games, rides, other stuff. This is not about jaws and the word is otherwise ambiguous. Good Ol’factory14:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
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:speedy rename all. It makes sense to do these immediately that the vast majority of them are already renamed in this way. These are essentially left-overs from the previous nominations.Good Ol’factory04:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale:Rename to use "rugby union players" rather than "rugby union footballers". This a followup to the nomination of 104 categories at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_27#Rugby_union_players, which was supported without opposition and is currently being implemented by the bots. I considered whether this could be done as a speedy per Speedy criteria 2.4, but that criterion refers to a "rename bringing a category or categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree" (emphasis added by me), and this is is a new convention, not an established one, so it seems better to offer the opportunity for a full discussion ... but I have no objection to speedying this if any admin feels that is appropriate. Please note that I couldn't be bothered tagging all the categories, and hope that will be OK in this case since these moves are (I think) uncontroversial. I will notify WikiProject Rugby union. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 5 January 2010 (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:Other matters related to requests for adminship
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Other" has no referent, unless one digs around in the category tree to see what else is in the parent category. I don't think I've ever seen any other category on the system named this way. NB: Category:Misc. matters..., Category:Assorted matters..., or whatever could also work, as long as isn't something that begs a question. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Czech and Slovak bishops are good distinguishable. Idea of Czechoslovakism was abandoned a long time ago. All churches which have bishops had during Czechoslovakia era separately Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak dioceses. Czechoslovak Hussite Church is in principle only a Czech church (it has 5 Czech dioceses with 350 congregations and only 1 Slovak diocese with 3 congregations which comprise Czech people mainly). Czech Byzantine-rite Catholics (Greek-catolics) belonged to Slovakian bishop during Czechoslovakia. Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church have two Czech eparchies and two Slovak eparchies. I know no "Czechoslovak bishop". ŠJů (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I know of a "Czeckoslovak bishop": Karel Farský. He was a bishop, and he was a national of the state called Czechoslovakia. Thus, his nationality was Czechoslovak. Thus, he was a Czechoslovak bishop. It seems to me the category should be used to categorize historical bishops who were of Czechoslovak nationality, like Farský. Others that could be included based on this definition: Jan Šrámek, Jindřich Šimon Baar, Jan Bula, Jakub Deml, and Andrej Hlinka. (Czechoslovak nationality is a completely separate issue from Czech or Slovak ethnicity, of course.) Good Ol’factory08:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
In Europe, nationality concept relates to ethnic nation, not to state corporation. It exists no "Yugoslav nation" or "Czechoslovak nation" or "Austria-Hungarian nation", just like it exists no "West European nation" or "South American nation". Pittsburgh Agreement mentioned two nations in the new created Czechoslovakia, just as all constitutions since 1948. Idea of czechoslovakism was very controversial from the outset and was expediently created only as the tactical argument in order claiming of self-determination right (Czechoslovakia has more German inhabitants than Slovakian inhabitants). The Declaration from Martin endorsed a document which originally declared self-determination right of Slovakian nation too. Idea of czechoslovakism was injected behindhand and by very controversial way. Czechoslovak Hussite Church was always a Czech church, although professed Czechoslovakism idea. Andrej Hlinka was always Slovak priest and politician, the others named were Czech priests. --ŠJů (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Btw: Most of named priests was originally in Austria-Hungary, subsequently in Czechoslovakia, subsequently in Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia or in Slovakian state and some subsequently again in Czechoslovakia. But their nationality didn't change. --ŠJů (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Despite what you say, "Czechoslovak" was still a nationality. It had passports. It had citizenship laws. There were no separate rights given to the two separate nations. You're probably mixing personal identification with legal fact. Finally, "West Europe" and "South America" have never been unitary sovereign states, so your example is not quite on point. Good Ol’factory13:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact that English language confuses "nationality" and "state citizenship" don't means that there is no difference. The word "nationality" adverts to "nation", not to state corporation. Your concept of nationality supposes incorrectly that every state generates one nation. However, although political states rise, disappear and regroup, the religious culture has its own continuity independently on momentary political aggregation. --ŠJů (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Bishops in Czechoslovakia. This little tangle illustrates again the avoidable folly of using an adjectival form for naming categories such as this, an issue also discussed at CFD January 1 on Models from Northern Ireland. The fact that someone lives, works, or holds the legal citizenship of a particular country does not necessarily mean that they identify themselves as being "of" that nation. Naming people-by-occupation and nationality categories as "Fooish Boos" presumes that those within the category accept the label "fooish", which is a false presumption in a significant number of cases. It's easily avoidable, and for the sake of neutrality it should be avoided in all such categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
keep and don't rename, unless we are going to change Category:Czechoslovak people and all its subcategories. Czechoslovak just means "of the state of Czechoslovakia". Yeah, the state sucked if we're worried about representation of the real world of ethnic nations. I think most users understand this. That doesn't change the fact that it was a nationality, with a passport, citizenship laws, etc. Good Ol’factory13:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The state existed, but like other states the adjective is contentious. Why use the contentious form "Fooian booers" when we could use the uncontentious "Booers from Foo"? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but who is going to nominate Category:Czechoslovak people and all its subcategories for renaming? If someone committed to do it, I could support this. Picking this one out will just bring inconsistency to the tree, just as we now have in the Northern Ireland and Georgia (country) ones for people. Good Ol’factory23:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
RenameCategory:Czechoslovak Hussite Church bishops to something clearer - how about Category:Bishops of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church - and remove it from nationality trees altogether (this will empty the category under discussion). (This is one of Pastorwayne's blunders into areas of which he knows nothing.) There is an assumption throughout 'Bishops in Foo' that they are fooian; I expect Rowan Williams is in an English category via some inclusion or other (and probably Anglo Saxon too). (I too know nothing about the Czechoslovak Hussite Church, whether it had branches outside Czechoslovakia, whether its members had to be of particular nationality etc.) Occuli (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
"Czechoslovak Church" (since 1971 named Czechoslovak Hussite Church) has 5 dioceses in Czech lands and one very little-populous diocese in Slovakia (see here) whose members are mainly from the Czech minority in Slovakia. I have no objection to the proposed renaming. Hovever this category can be categorized under Czech bishops, excepting bishops of Bratislava diocese. Diocese in Bratislava has only two priests now (the bishop Jan Hradil in Bratislava and priest Ján Lauko in Košice). I suppose, hardly some Hussite bishop from Bratislava will have his own article at Misplaced Pages. --ŠJů (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I think, states have no bishops, state have ministers and clerks. Only churches have bishops. The question is, how the nationality was perceived by churches. I'm convinced that Slovakian churches preserved their Slovak national identity during the whole Czechoslovak era, just as Czech (Bohemian and Moravian) churches. Even the Czechoslovak Church was specifically Czech church and its influence in Slovakia was minimal and centred foremost on Czech people in Slovakia. --ŠJů (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral I chose "A.C.E." for this category because of its brevity and the wide use of the abbreviation; for example, journalists refer to the main American Cinema Editors award as the "ACE Eddie Award". The current instructions discourage abbreviations, but not unambiguously. Easchiff (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Rename per nom. The abbreviation is highly ambiguous (see ACE), and will be unfamiliar to those already acquainted with the topic. The use of the abbreviation is slightly less problematic with the "ACE Eddie Award" because that title does give some context. However, Category:A.C.E. gives the reader no clue about its meaning when it appears at the bottom of an article, so it is a clear case for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Query. Since sentiment is favoring renaming this category, is there a convenient way of updating the pages that are categorized using its present name? There are about 110 of them. Easchiff (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Four unnecessary eponymous categories for historical figures, which serve to link (a) things which happen to be named after the person but are irrelevant to understanding the person as a topic in their own right (or even, in the case of Maisonneuve (magazine), named after a street that's named after the person, which is a step further than this kind of thing would be warranted even if it were permissible), and/or (b) things they were involved with which are already adequately linked in the existing body text of the relevant articles anyway. Delete as WP:OCAT: eponym/shared name/small with limited to no growth potential; the one correction that's necessary is to ensure that the eponym articles themselves are readded to Category:People of New France. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)